Quote - Wabe
sorry bro you're a great artist/guy, sigh.:(
Fed the hell up with this crap myself. Mods are very nice about it, but it's RETARDED.
**You're stuff is obviously ASEXUAL, how the hell can a penis-less alien be "Nude and offensive"? It's like complaining Bugs Bunny's ass is on show!
**
Alas, Rendo's servers are in the USA, a large chunk of which is total bloody "LaLa Land" and at the root of this. half my family is American, and they know that, jeesh, nearly all of them have a specific faith but they ain't damn nuts about it and know the difference between "faith" and "religion". 
"Creationist Park"...OMG...

Attacking the USA, religion and ones personal beliefs is not the way to go and is very unprofessional to say the least. It is not like other countries don't have views or beliefs we would never agree with. I think it's a very poor response and character.

The laws here in the USA are clearly outlined and must be followed by those operating web sites here. Also, this is a PRIVATE web site and is only offered as a service under THEIR terms of use. If you want to come here then you are subject to them as they see fit, it is as simple as that.

Quote - I wasn't going to get involved with this "discussion" but some of the stuff I'm reading gives me little option than to have my say on the matter..
This may get me in hot water but what the hell..

1) Wabe was asked politely by me to provide new THUMBNAILS for some of his images because the thumbnails broke the rules on "nudity in thumbs"

2) Wabe was NOT asked to remove his images, as nudity is allowed in the galleries.

3) Because he didn't want to comply with my request in [1] above, the images in question were put in holding as all images in contravention of the thumbnail guidlines are.
In this he was not treated any differently to anyone else.

4) The rules are there, whether we agree with them or not, if we signed up for an account here, it means we accept them, even if we might not agree with some of them. In so doing we agree to abide by those rules.

5) If people really don't like the rules in a place, they always have an option to "not be there", this is a basic freedom we all enjoy

At the end of the day, Renderosity is owned by a group of people who have the final say on how it's run and what rules they want to apply, to argue about it isn't constructive and there are correct channels to go through if you don't agree with a rule or you would like to see a change somewhere, this would be the right way to go about it. These people are not monsters, they are more than capable of discussion and listening to poeple, and yes I have known them to change things if the points given are right and correct and done in a proper way.

I'm not here to argue with anyone, I'm putting my point across as the Vue coordinator, a job I took on for the good of the Community when the Vue forum was rudderless without a skipper. Sure I've made mistakes along the way, I've also done some good I believe. This particular issue was dealt with correctly in accordance with the rules we all agreed to abide by..

Not taking any sides, but I can understand the position of Renderosity. The Terms of Service are clearly defined and when you post images you are given specific direction on how t do so and what is or is not allowed. You can post a partial view of your whole image that does not contain any nudity or you can post any other for the preview thumbnail. It is only the thumbnail that can not contain any nudity according to what I read for the terms of posting to the gallery.

As this is a private web site, it is subject to use and agreement to those terms of service in whatever manor the owners choose. If a web site is located in the USA, then it must follow specific laws that govern the servers for said web site. I am somewhat surprised there is not a "USC 2257" declaration stating this site contains no real models as defined by that law. Everyone in the USA is subject to very strict rules for content such as this. So, I do not blame Renderosity for making sure those rules are followed.

Quote - I am somewhat surprised there is not a "USC 2257" declaration stating this site contains no real models as defined by that law. Everyone in the USA is subject to very strict rules for content such as this.

Before speaking about a law you must read the law and understand what the law means and where/when it  applies.
First at all what does it mean "models" and "real".
If you look at the Poser or Vue gallery then you see that are only meshes and no real models so the USC 2257 declaration should have been present.
Now if you look at the phograph gallery you can see real people images that are real models, so the USC 2257 declaration must not be present.

And now what do you do??????......

3DNeo,
and like I said, half my family ARE American and they complain about this kind of crap that's been going on for last 3 decades (which is ironic because they are conservative, in proper sense of the word, and "religious". They love their country but they know the warts on it like I know ours)

Corporate demands for total control of IP/copyright (note some sites were getting legal threats so had to take down models of specific aeroplanes, cars etc) check the DRM we've had shoved down our throats. As an honest consumer I bitterly object to that stuff kludging my PCs up. Pirates remove it anyway and have less hassles! jeesh.

In some states yes the religious extremists HAVE tried to push through all kinds of nuttery into the statute books. Over all the nation has also went from "Conservative AND Liberal" to "Oligarchy/Fascism vs Liberal" (more extremism, partizanship almost getting to violence and normal conservatives getting marginalized)
Nixon was the last actual "conservative" US President. That is tragic :(

All of which has a knock on effect down to us.

And the law can be an ass and our civic duty to constructively complain, work for change or rebuff it when it goes too far.  :)

I wish people would keep their wide-ranging political and religious rhetoric out of this discussion. It only provides an excuse to lock the thread.

Daz is currently selling a figure called "Puppet - Merchant Resource Base." http://www.daz3d.com/i/shop/itemdetails/?item=10961 Is this figure nude? How is the body of this figure any more sexually defined than the bodies of the so-called nude aliens? We are talking about bodies with the most generalized cartoon-like contours possible with no sexual anatomy even hinted at.

I think even the late Jerry Falwell wouldn't have believed that wabie's aliens are naked and offensive. Is Gumby nude?  Dammit!

The spirit of the rules is decided by the moderators. If they choose to make the rules insane, it is on them.

As Paloth said, if this thread becomes about politics it will be locked or moved to Mount Doom!!

Incidentally, I don't believe anybody said Wabe's aliens were offensive..

Ok gang....here we go again...

This discussion is sliding down the same slippery slopes the ones in the Poser Forum, and Community Center ones were...

The arguing over thumbnail content..what is nude and what isn't, what should be and what shouldn't be.. is over....the thumbnail guidelines are pretty specific regarding nudity.

Again, if you have concerns, suggestions, or complaints then send an email to admin@renderosity.com.

I'm locking this down as well...I would hope that more of these type complaint threads are not restarted.

Thanks