I've posted the post below in the VUE forum as this is the forum I participated in most. However, I think the issues I raise are of general interest, so I'm reposting here. My apologies if you've already seen it, but if you dont visit the vue forum feel free to add your comments here. Thanks

Unlike some recent high profile departures from the vue gallery and forum(including a coordinator), I just took part less and less without an official declaration I’m leaving.
I havnt posted partly because I havnt been creating any CG images, but mainly because I am so disillusioned and discouraged by the attitude of Rendo's officials in their application of rules and in their interaction with it’s members.  I figured it’s time I post a thread expressing my concerns. As nothing about them is of a personal nature, they may be of interest to the community in general.

1. Nudity rules. I know much has been said about it  already. Perhaps the frequency the issue keeps coming up again and again should give the official a clue they havnt reached a satisfactory resolution?
    

So, is nudity automatically imply the image isi ‘dirty’  or obscene? I refute this vehemently. For sure some images with 'clothed' are more pornographic then the nude ones.
It isnt how much clothing there is but how respectful it is to the characters and what they represent. Unfortunately this might  be an impossible criterion to  enforce. So It is more practical to try implement a ‘mechanical’ definition.
I understood that rendo's  practical definition was ‘no visible nipples or genitals’. It doesnt seem to work. Just some examples to demonstrate my point:
I had an image where none of  these areas were visible as they were behind other body parts.
http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1991601
I was asked to flag it for nudity. I’m not confirming or denying she was nude, but from what the moderator can see, there is no infringement  of the rule. She might be wearing ‘stick on’  clothing items on the body parts in question. There is no evidence otherwise, so doesnt 'presumed innocent' apply? And why does it matter if the relevant body parts are obscured by a piece of cloth or another object or  another body part?

It isnt consistent with the rule and its practical application. The rule is being bent by the moderator perhaps to fit his personal view of what’s morally correct.

On the other hand I posted the image
http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=2030012
Both characters appear to be nude. I wasnt asked for a flag or special thumbnail. Is it because it is in a traditional painting rather than CG? would it be disallowed if it was more realistic (in terms of her nipples area)? would it be allowed if it was in the cubist genre of paintings and her nipples were squares? Where is the limit?

Similar problems have arisen recently about nudity and alien creatures. Where is the limit between a human and an animal? What are sexual organs of an imaginary creature?

it is  impossible to apply the rule consistently in any of these cases. The rules would have to be bent by the specific moderators. Their decision may make sense to themselves but it is objectively arbitrary.

However, this problem of interpretation, although  important, is just the tip of the iceberg. I (as many before me) am questioning the justification of having the rule at all.
I dont see why the puritanical nature of some members should infringe on the freedom of all others. I dont see why some people have the right to determine what is moral in this respect and enforce their opinion on me.
I often see moderators comment “ Please dont think we imply your image is offensive, it’s   just a rule, you understand’ - They are not being honest. They  ARE declaring it offensive/immoral.  Are they saying if they are asked  to censor anything with red in it just because some dont like it aesthetically  they  would? I doubt it. Rendo applies censorship because some people see it as immoral, at least be honest about it. Well, I object to my images being branded immoral. I try to depict the beauty of human beings and express respect and appreciation.  If some people dont want to see nature/god’s creation  in all its glory it should be their problem, not mine.
I do have a solution which would put the onerous of action on them.  Let me flag my gallery  as a whole as ‘not for the puritans’ . Let them flag themselves as ‘puritan’.  All images  or at least all thumbnails of images by artists defining their gallery as not for puritans will be blocked/masked for all puritan members. People who see nudity automatically as obscene are not welcome in my gallery as a whole I shouldnt need to  flag specific images.
(By the way having images blocked from overly sensitive people is not a new idea it exists, for example on redbubble.com, so it is perfectly feasible to implement).

To be frank, based on previous experience  the answer I expect for this suggestion- the principle and the practical- is ‘ This is not the way WE do it. We chose to do it our way. It is our site and we can do as we like.”
Not only is this an arbitrary and dictatorial attitude, it isnt completely true either.
For example even in private clubs racial discrimination isnt allowed. So not everything is OK to do just because someone owns a site. It has to be just and has to be seen to be just.

2.Promoting commercial products in Rendo forums.
This issue by itself doesnt bother me as much on a personal level as the nudity issue. It's nature is more of a nuisance. But the official responses I got about my concerns are of importance, and are yet another example of their 'flexi-rules' and inconsistent approach.
According to Rendo's rule posting an advertisement to promote a commercial product is not allowed (unless it's a marketplace product, and then it is only allowed in the marketplace forum). I pointed out to the officials  several times about specific advertisement threads. I also suggested a clarifying stickie for the vue forum (as there is for the Poser forum). Some advertisements have been removed but no stickie in spite of several requests. I find this puzzling as it seems like another rule which cannot be applied rigorously or consistently.
My criteria would be that if a thread contains helpful information to members who do not buy the product it is OK to post it. For example -eonite's cloud thread is a clear advertisement for his c3d products. However this thread included many demos and freebees and was overall illuminating even to those who did not buy the product. There is a place for such a thread.
Chipp Walters posted a thread about his new book. Clear advertisement. No bonus to anyone but those that buy the book. Let me be as clear as I can -I am NOT claiming his product isnt good. I have reason to believe many will find the book very helpful particularly with its unique presentation. It is still just an advertisement. It is still an infringement of the rule. It took the moderators 2 weeks(!) to come back to me. I wish I could quote precisely, as it is hard to believe otherwise(quoting an official rply is apparently against TOS, another unjustifiable rule).The content of the reply is that Chippwalters did indeed infringe the rules on the posting of commercial items in the Forum, his product is seen as something of a boon to Vue-ers in that it can be seen as an instruction manual.
So it stays because the officials think it's a useful book? How does usefulness or quality come into it? If it isnt of use to users without buying the book, it is a plain advertisement. Current rule says it isnt allowed.
The rule is generally unenforceable. Not only can a vendor ask a buddy to post the thread for him (not considered an advert). Not only can the buddy just post a question 'does anyone know of a new book about vue and the vendor will reply (not an advert). Not only can the vendor preface his advert with 'I'm not advertising my product as this isnt allowed but you can guess I may have one'. (currently in a vue  thread). But it could just be overruled by the moderator because he likes the product for one reason or another.

They should make up their mind – enforce the rule as it is, or cancel it. Arbitrary application is disrespectful to those who obey the rule (and those who have been made to remove their thread) and to the general public who doesnt get the benefits of the rule nor of  its removal.

3.Suggestion from members:
It seemed like a good idea having rendo listen to member's suggestion. It would imply  Rendo cares about its members. Not in my experience. It is just a facade for them letting members talk but doing what they want.
Some examples – a few years ago I suggested that it should be possible to assign more than one gallery or genre to an image. I was told this is impossible computationally. Which is of course ridiculous – not only is there nothing to suggest it cant be done in principle, but most similar sites  already do it (dA, zazzle, rebubble). Recently, someone else brought up the same idea in the suggestion box. This time the reaction was 'good idea, we'll add this to our list'. An idea that was rejected off hand is suddenly a good idea... As it still isnt implemented, I figure both replies are just a way to shut up the members. Nobody takes any notice of anything raised in th esuggestion box or otherwise. They just go on with their own agenda. Rutra tried to offer the idea of a system keeping track  what happens to member's suggestion
http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2804031.
This was dismissed off hand as 'too hard'. I asked for examples of member suggestions that have been taken on board and implemented. They would not or could not provide those. Yet they keep saying they 'add things to the list'. If there is a list, couldnt they make it public and provide updates?
Indicates to me that the 'suggestion box' is just lip service. No one is listening but they dont have the intrinsic honesty to admit it.

Well, I had some other examples of why rendo's policies and arbitrary reactions discourage and depress me, but this is getting too long anyhow. If I havnt made my point by now, I probably never will.
I predict the powers that be will still invoke their primary directive “we do what we want when we want it. You dont like it you can leave” , so this may well be my swan song for rendo.  Shame, seemed like a nice place with nice people (members primarily).

Prove me wrong Rendo officials, address thses issues with honest intent to solve the problem, not by looking for the quickest way to shut up me and other disappointed mebers.

 Artpearl,

I can understand your frustration, however you must know that, no matter how much we would like to, we do not live in a world of just black and white situations, but a rainbow of in-between colors and grey areas.  Any action you see taken on the community side goes through much discussion and thought of the rules on the whole as well as what we feel would be more community minded.  Granted, we don't always make the right decision, but we do so earnestly.
Sometimes it's really easy to come to a decision.  There are times, like in your first example, where it is really easy to decide whether or not an image has nudity.  If you can see genitals, or nipples on a humanoid female, it is deemed nudity.  However, like in your example, there are times when we have to take the dictionary definition of nudity.  Nudity, according to the Merriam Webster Dictionary (and a sea of others) literally means without clothing.  Now, there may not be anything showing, but, if it's obvious that the figure behind is, indeed, without clothing then it is nude.  So, you and I are not going to agree on that.

As for your 2nd image...as I have nothing to do with the 2D gallery, unfortunately I cannot answer why your image had not gone up for review before.  However, I'm not sure what comfort you might take in the fact that it is in review now.  Unless it is completely blatant (I don't have my glasses on at the moment, so I honestly couldn't tell whether the figures are or aren't nude offhand), every potential violation goes for a team review.  Each image is reviewed by normally no less than 5 members of staff to deem whether or not an image is a violation, needs a flag, or a new thumbnail.*

As for the recent post in the Vue forum regarding a book; While it is true that advertising is not allowed, we recognize the difference between advertising a product and sharing knowledge.  We also recognize that not all knowledge in this world is free.  There are many ways to share your knowledge of a program, and books are just one in a sea of many ways to share your knowledge.  We did ask that the member/author remove the link from the post, but we welcome posts in the community not only alerting members of a new venue of learning, but also of a fantastic milestone by one of our very own community members.  It really is a boon for all of us to have such amazing talent in the community, and helps us all strive to achieve more.
About a year and a half ago, I wrote an announcement in the Poser forum, highlighting a similar, though not exact, situation.  While this was posted in the Poser forum (at the time, thought to be really the only area affected by the problem), it applies to the site as a whole.  

Now, I know that it seems that we don't listen to members regarding situations, simply because action doesn't happen right away.  I have no way of proving it to you without violating my NDA, but I can tell you that there are discussions going on right now amongst Moderators and Admins regarding the TOS, and the very "Alien Nudity" discussion that you mentioned.  These things take time and will not be remedied overnight, but we will work until we have a solution that works best for the entire community.  Sometimes, though, the way we are doing things now about a certain situation IS the right thing for the community as a whole, so you may not see a change at al.

The problem that some people see is that their own interpretation of the TOS is being violated by either the membership or the staff.  The problem is, sometimes, interpretation is wrong.  Even WE get things wrong.  And, we try to acknowledge when we've been wrong, and we should move on from there.  The more we're willing to acknowledge and fix our mistakes, the more we grow as a community.

I hope this answers some of your concerns, artpearl.  I am willing to listen to any and all concerns that you have.  

Jeni

*Please note: Not providing proper thumbnail or improper use of flags is NOT a TOS violation in and of itself.  However, REPEATEDLY doing so IS, as it constitutes affecting the normal operations of the community if staff is constantly having to fix flags and thumbnails for one member.

Jeni,
Thank you for your quick answer, it is taken as a sign of good will. It is a shame however that being so keen to reply quickly you focused selectively on some points I mentioned and not on others. In particular it is a shame you didnt get the overall message I tried to convey – rules that are unjustified in principle, and unenforceable in a consistent and fair manner.
Let me restate some of the central, most important issues I tried to raise, perhaps you can address those.

Rendo should review their rules with the general view to minimize restrictions on its members as much as possible. Dont make new rules or leave old ones if they arnt morally justified. Dont make or keep rules that arnt clearly and fairly(to all members) to enforce.

1.The nudity rule is unjustified in principle. It implies something is morally wrong with nudity and the general public should be protected from it.
Nudity is seen as wrong only by a fraction of the members. Their views should not infringe on the expression freedom of others. I suggested a way to enable puritans not to encounter any of my work which may include nudity. Let them declare their wish to avoid such subjects. Let me declare my work may not be suitable for them. This way they can still avoid potential images they object to and I dont have to brand my creations as immoral.
You can add the new system on top of the current one – if some just want to flag specific images for nudity they could. For those like me who see it as objectionable there will be an alternative.
2.The rule of 'no commercial advertisement' on forums is unpractical and its benefits dubious. There are many ways to circumvent it (some of which I mentioned), so I dont see the point in having it. If it is kept it should be kept across the board and applied to all  posts and all members. Product quality cant come into it. Are you saying all products which you disallowed advertising are bad products? The identity of the vendor shouldnt come into it. Are you saying some prominent members deserve different treatment then others?
And who's to judge what is good quality or if the creator is 'talented'? The vue moderator certainly has no qualifications to judge what's good for vue'rs – he doesnt use it and brags about the superiority of Bryce... As far as I know at the moment there is nothing to specify what kind of products are exempt from the rule. Are you saying books are exempt? What about tutorials (for fee)? What about software/plugins? What about scripts? Is it limited to poser objects? Morphs? Make your choice – delete the rule or apply it across the board and clarify the inclusions and exclusions in the TOS or as a stickie in each forum.
(I've seen your announcement on the Poser forum. I asked the vue moderator REPEATEDLY to have a similar one in the Vue forum. This was completely ignored.)

1. If you solicit suggestions from the public provide real reactions and follow up. Just saying 'added to a list'  without further progress is lip service with no respect to the suggester.

Please address these matters of principle explicitly if you decide to reply, and/or raise the issues in a staff meeting. Anything else will be a clear validation of my suspicion – rendo officials will do their best to shut up serious complaints/issues. This could be done softly and politely as you did, but politeness shouldnt be confused with helpfulness.

To end I'll touch on some of your comments with regard to some specific details, just to keep the record straight

1.The image I chose to demonstrate the illogical consequences of applying the nudity rule does not violate any rules. You cannot see the nipples or genitals area so you dont know if there is or isnt a piece of clothing there. I've seen many images with a tiny circle barely covering the nipples area only(I can provide examples). That is considered OK. Maybe my character is wearing those. Maybe she's wearing a similar triangle on the genital area? If I post an image with a female facing the camera but behind a low wall, you can see her shoulders and up. No clothing visible on that part. Should this image be flagged for nudity? She maybe nude but maybe she's wearing a strapless dress?
In the civilized world it isnt up to  the 'defendant' to defend his innocence, it is up to the rules-enforcer to prove a rule has been broken.
Another way to look at it – if I was to chose a thumbnail for it, consistent with 'no nudity in thumbnails', which part of the image should I avoid? All parts of the image of any size or location are free of 'disallowed bits'. If all parts could appear in the thumbnail the image is not a nude.
It is possible to implement and enforce 'no vissible nipples/genitals'. It is impossible to enforce 'no clothing', it leads to ridiculous scenarios.
2.Bringing up  my unflaged painting was just a different type of example, tradditional art rather than CG, how the rule can lead to strange scenarios. Maybe  you and the moderator now think this one should have a flag. But you havnt answered the related queries – would the guy himself be OK as his genitals arnt seen? Would a cubist representation be exempt?
Not long ago I was told that an image rendo used to promote their Halloween competition should be seen as 'violence' saying the red on his face is 'not real bload, it's only paint'. Well the brush strokes on her chest are not real nipples, they (and the rest of her) just paint...make that consistent!
3.Aliens' nudity – I'm glad some people may find their specific clash with the nudity rule is resolved. I can almost guarantee the relief will be temporary. Another border case will come up perhaps with the creature resembling a human just a tiny bit more...
It's the nudity rule as a whole that is wrong, not the various quirks.
4.It is unnecessary and uncalled for to 'hint' I will be sanctioned if I repeatedly post unflagged images which are then deemed nudity. Yet another sign of your intrinsic disrespect and heavy hand approach to decent members' comments. You can ask the vue moderator how cooperative and respectful I was when he thought my image  should be flagged.
I dont flag images if I think they dont contain nudity. I dont play cat &mouse games with the moderators. Confusing rules will have the result of people interpreting them their own way. Yes, it may add more work for the moderators. Exactly my point. Remove this rule and implement my suggestion above, it will simplify life for you too.
However, to be honest and frank, I do not intend to add any more nudity flags at all to any work in the future.
As I said I find this practice wrong and will not brand my images 'immoral' any more.
That may mean I cant post here. It's sad, but there is no lack of other sites and I'm sure more will pop up with time. Others, perhaps more prominent than me, have left and found other grazing grounds. You can chose to encourage people to leave or you can treat them and their suggestions seriously.

 1.  There are laws in the US that we have to adhere to.  So, whatever your view on this rule, we have rules stating that nudity must be flagged, period.  Not that nudity can't happen, just add a flag and a different thumbnail image.  We provide one for member use on the Thumbnail Guidelines page.

1. It was implemented, and continued, to keep down on spam posts by unscrupulous vendors who would otherwise use this site as a free-for all.  So, while you see no need for it in your mind, there are reasons we have it.

2.  Again, we DO take all items into consideration.  Whether or not they are implemented are based on 1. how practical they are in terms of community-wide usage 2. Whether or not we need to get other staff (programmers, Marketplace admin, etc.) involved. 3. Whether the request is simply personal and wouldn't benefit the community as a whole at all 4. and finally retraining of staff.  All of those things take time, regardless of the situation.  It would not only be impractical to keep the community updated on the status of every single request made, but it would be impossible to logistically maintain as most of our staff are remote-serving staff, working out of our homes.  "The list" is most definitely centrally located, but those of us who communicate with members most often don't have access to it.

Frankly, I find the rest of your post argumentative for absolutely no reason.  We are doing our best to accomodate the community as a whole.  Unfortunately, that means that not everyone is going to be happy with certain things.  This is part of catering to groups of people.  

The simple fact is that, while it IS your art, you do not get to define what is and is not considered nudity by the staff and admin of this site.  We have guidelines that we have set forth, and all we ask people to do is to adhere to the rules and ask questions regarding the parts of the rules that they don't understand.  Not one of us on the staff enjoys having to trawl through the galleries to look for violations.  I'd rather go through and look for artistic works that I enjoy.  I'd rather point out the good stuff.  Unfortunately, there are people who are either ignorant to certain aspects of our TOS or those who feel it does not apply to them.  In either instance, we work to educate first before all else.  

I'm sorry you feel that we don't do enough, however, we are human, and can only do so  much.  Working to make things better takes time, and we'd rather do things right than make sure they're done RIGHT NOW.

As for your comments regarding TheBryster, I have personally never seen that, but, if you have complaints about a staff member, they need to go to admin@renderosity.com rather than be aired in the public forums.  Ideally, we would hope things would be able to be worked out in private between the two of you.  I can only hope that some of the things that you've taken offense to were things said by TheBryster in jest, since I know that sometimes his jocular way of speaking can be misinterpreted in that manner.  

Well, I got to the dead end I expected, the moderators here and in the vue forum telling me (one politely and one rudely)
" We'll do what we want. If you dont like it go away"
I presented the facts as I encountered them and the absurd consequences of the rules in many cases(please read my second post in the community thread too). I offered an alternative way of dealing with the flags for nudity. None of these were addressed in  a rational manner.
I dont know what you mean by argumentative for no reason. I presented logical arguments in a calm non-emotional way. Is there another way to argue an issue except by being argumentative?

Well, so be it, I give up.

Thank You JenX. I for one object to nudity, which is my right, Why do people get mad because they have to have a special place for nudity,  They have Rendorotica  for the type Pearl Likes, let us have a place that doesn't  have nudity.. To me that is fair.

**StormysMom
**It is obvious you didnt bother reading what I actually said about the subject.
I'm not trying to force you to see the nudes i'm posting. I've put forward a suggestion that will enable me to post them and enable you to avoid them. For your benefit I'll repeat what I said:

"I do have a solution which would put the onerous of action on them.  Let me flag my gallery  as a whole as ‘not for the puritans’ . Let them flag themselves as ‘puritan’.  All images  or at least all thumbnails of images by artists defining their gallery as not for puritans will be blocked/masked for all puritan members. People who see nudity automatically as obscene are not welcome in my gallery as a whole I shouldnt need to  flag specific images.
(By the way having images blocked from overly sensitive people is not a new idea it exists, for example on redbubble.com, so it is perfectly feasible to implement)."

The moderators chose to ignore my suggestion without a single word of explanation. You can chose to ignore it too and  confirm that this is for you and the moderators  a "tabu" issue - you dont want to think about it rationally just in case you'll see your opponent's opinion is actually quite reasonable and considerate.

I'm not sure about the idea of being a 'Member' of rendo is meaningful, artPearl. To me a member implies being part of a club in which one has a recognised and defined role in forming the rules of the club. I do not see rendo is a club though, rather it is an owned site of which I am just a user (For free too) here for my own benefit (the pleasure I get when I see someone use one of my models in thier picture). The owner is free to set the rules of use, no matter how inconsitently or illogically they apply them. I sympathise with you though. I had a picture of an alien taken down, even though the alien was covered in fur (Lol). What I believe is the greates inconsitency in a world where equality of treatment is supposed to matter, is why it is ok for pictures of men showing thier nipples not to need a flag. Female breasts are no more genital than male breasts. I understand the argument that brasts can be arousing to men, but shoes can be to some too.

Geez! I think it is stupid to have a nudity rule and act all outraged at some content and then allow a photo close up of a Penis! http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=2127599&user_id=372461&np&np
Seriously, that was just plain offensive. But it does no good to say something about offensive, disturbing imagery here. Some products show cutting, which I find extremely offensive. Because I have a loved one who did this in her early teens. Some pics have semi nudes in the most lewd poses that make most nudes look modest and those are OK! :/

ArtPearl, I agree and did read the whole post you wrote.  I hope you stay, and i will miss you if you go. But you have some extremely valid points that have plagued RO for a long time.

BTW, in response to Stormysmom, who finds nudity offensive. Do you go to museums and look at the classics? Most are nude and are the basis of most modern art. It is not the nudity that is offensive, it is the context and content. That is what needs to be looked at here.

Ariana

Our nudity rule is intended to flag images for the system filter, not remove all nudity from the site.  There are multiple renders where the focus of the image are a woman's cleavage or even pubis mons, and they are not removed, only flagged.  Should we remove that simply because it's a penis?  

Our policy isn't to remove all nudity, but to have it flagged so that those who wish to not see nudity don't have to.  The same with violence.  

Well I guess you don't realize it, but you just made ArtPearl's point.

I am more and more not posting images or comments. RO is not fullfilling my needs like it used to anymore. But if losing a lot of posts (*of Images, and therefore sales, because ultimately that is RO's goal) from one person who tends to be outspoken does not matter, imagine how many who never say a word leave and never return?

The only point is that we all crave a clean cut answer to what is allowed. I have been unsure and flagged say a second skin item as having nudity, only to get an e-mail that it is not appropriatly flagged and to please fix it or it will be removed. Only to have RO turn around and send another e-mail because a simuliar image using a second skin was not flagged, with the same threat! It only points out that art is subjective and your own mods (*often decide that something is not correctly flagged only to miss another practically identical image) do not understand what is clear guidelines for the gallery!

As to violence. The rule states that no animal or human can be shown tortured or harmed. Anything that appears to be "Killing". I have had dragon images taken down, as well as human. THEN you see simuliar images that remain. So there is a great disparity in the way mods and management selectively flag or remove an image. Classic Fantasy Art is slaying monsters and enemies, and Classic Nudes often show bodies touching one another in an non-sexual way (*that is often confused mods here, because of the man and woman embracing nude) both are subjective to whom ever is viewing the galleries on any given day.

This issue exists. It has not gotten resolved, which is why it keeps coming up.

BTW, Jen, I 1,000% disagree that a close up of a Penis is a work of art that should have a place in the RO galleries... THAT does belong over at 'otica. 

Maybe the only solution that would be fair is to use a "2 Thumbnail System" ONLY! That applies it to the entire gallery on RO!

What I mean is a thumbnail system where you have one thumbnail that states:
"This Image is NOT Safe for All Audiences"
and therefore protects the faint of heart, and one that states:
"This Image is Safe for All Audiences".
It is simple, cuts to the chase and let's the artist post in confidence.

You could protect the viewers and aid the artists with the simplest common denominator! You would not have to warn of nudity or violence, because the thumb tells the viewer that it is at thier risk to view the image. Conversely the "Safe" thumb tells the viewer that this image can be shown to thier grandchild!   Why this is not a good idea is beyond me, except that RO wants a gallery filled with colorful thumbs. Which is why there is the rule about the thumb must contain a part of the image.

This is a dead horse that has been flogged ad nauseum. Simuliar galleries do not have an issue because the rules are cut and dry. ArtPearl just pointed it out and it won't die until clear rules are set in place.

I had my say. As far as I am concerned I do not need to state any more obvious observations.

Ariana

I actually never stated that it was a work of art.  I don't consider body part closeups of any kind to be artistic (including my avatar.  It's neat.  Doesn't make it art.)

Our TOS actually states what is and isn't allowed in the galleries.  However, if you're getting conflicting information, PLEASE contact myself or an admin.  We are still working to make certain that all of the staff members are using the same STAFF guidelines and not going rogue and using their own, personal opinions on actions.  

If you still have the emails from staff regarding the flags, I wouldn't mind seeing them so I can get a clearer picture on what's going on, Ariana.  This will help me to make sure our staff is actioning items fairly and consistently.

Jeni

That would be great, altho I do not know if you want to take on an issue like this personally. But as for me it would clear up a lot of confusion. I don't keep e-mails on this sort of thing, they generally go straight to the trash which I empty weekly.  BUT! If it happens again I will send you a site mail with a copy of the warning, a link to the pic on say divshare, and maybe it could help to make decisions cohesive on these problems.

You know no one wants to be the internet/gallery police. So if mine is flagged, and someone else's isn't, if I speak out it looks petty. So until ArtPearl posted I had just decided to limit my image posts. What did finally disgust me was a beautiful image of a man and a woman, nude, embracing. It got pulled for sexual content! Nude does not equal sex! *sigh... So it was then I decided that I did not need to post as much and dropped Gallery Plus from my membership.

I honestly think the 2 thumbnail choice could work out great. Heck if you want color make one Red (*for the scary Nudes!) and the other Green (*for the warm and fuzzies!). Problem solved.

BTW, one last question. I can see where if an image has nudity and it is not marked as such some could be offended. But where is the offense if an image is flagged nude or violent and it is not? Who gets offened there? I can just hear it now.... "I opened that up to see blood, gore and naked bodies! I am so insulted it was just a second skin!!!" Seriously! If an artist does flag it as nude, or violent, and it isn't nude or violent enough... why does it even matter? Stats? just do away with stats like how often it is viewed! Saves everyone here so many headaches. And actually returns some sanity to this issue.

BTW, on the penis thing, I was offended because it was UGLY! LOL! And it had certain things missing.... wonder how long it took to get that lighting.... hmmmm.... maybe a jar of some type of body fluid would have made it more cohesive.... *you know I was referencing the crucifix in the jar of pee. 

EEEEEWWWWWW!!!!!
Ariana 

Oh and I think Eyes are very artistic!!!

Oh I flagged this with a nudity flag cause of the link I posted above!

It's not about "being offended".  

If you mark an image as nudity/violence/containing vulgar language, and it has none, you are making the filters ineffective.  You are filtering out NON nude/violence/language containing images.  The filters are there for those with the preference set to not view the nudity/violence/language in the gallery.  The filters themselves aren't powerful enough to determine whether or not the image has nudity, so we trust that members will use their own judgement when they post.  If you cannot see genitalia, there is no nudity.  If you're flagging images where there  may be excess cleavage, but no nudity, it's misuse of the filter, and it's not how it's intended to work.  

For instance:

My nephews LOVE Kid Zui.  They play on it when they're allowed to, and it's actually a really great website.  However, Net Nanny, and several other internet filters, block it because it's an encrypted site AND flash based.  You could uncheck "block flash" and "Block encrypted sites", but that'd let through other unsavory sites.  There are HUNDREDS of sites blocked by net nanny, simply because they're encrypted...but they're encrypted to protect your kids' information, not to hack your computer.  Net Nanny blocks a site that is completely harmless, rather than fix their filters to actually block the bad stuff.  They have a blanket block that blocks mostly  harmless things.  And it, in effect, makes their software useless to anyone who is more than a casual computer user.

If you ever have a question on whether or not an image you want to post will need a flag, ANY staff member can help you.  Our email addresses are our usernames@Renderosity.com, and we'd be more than happy to preview an image for you to let you know whether or not the image would need a flag on it.

Thank for that Jen, I do appreciate it. What honestly does offend me is censorship.... period!

I also apologize to ArtPearl for hijacking her post... sincerely, you were so much help for me and I would hate to lose your expertise and wit due to this messy issue. Please site mail me with contact info if you honestly do decide that you are leaving. Your work is inspiring and educational in scope, style and technigue. If you leave it would be a great loss to many.

HugZ!
Ariana 

Attached Link: http://yfrog.com/2t67442832j

Seriously, your guess is as good as ours. The board is covering a majority of her body so  **I **  would have said not nude. But that probably means I am wrong! LOL!

On the Pasty Appliques, I would bet that is Nude.... BUT! that probably means I am wrong again! LOL!

Ergo, this (*and countless other) thread(s)!

Best of Luck! :)

HugZ!
Ariana

The thumbnail guidelines would seem to indicate that both images would need to be posted with alternative thumbs.

Picture A falls foul of the "No censor bars" clause, picture B shows more flesh in the hip area than a "standard bikini bottom".

I think only B would need to be flagged for "Nudity", although as it's obvious that the figure in picture A has no clothes on, that might also need flagging.

Neither show genitals.  Neither are nude.

In the past, at some point, both would have been considered to be nudity.  However, we are currently revamping the guidelines that we go by, to a more, well, sane way of dealing with the matter.

Jen,

So does that mean that my image I used as an example in my first post in this thread

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1991601

Will now be exempt from a nudity flag & special thumb nail, as genitals are not shown?

I hope that's true...

Thank you for your answers but I'm more confused than before. Three answers, four opinions. Why complicate something that is so simple? Look at what other sites do, like deviantart, for example. So simple. There are many ways of handling this topic and I think that renderosity chose the most complicated possible. Complication -> discussion -> unsatisfaction -> people leave I think I will wait for new rules before posting any image here.

.

Quote - Jen,

So does that mean that my image I used as an example in my first post in this thread

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1991601

Will now be exempt from a nudity flag & special thumb nail, as genitals are not shown?

I hope that's true...

As there are no genitals shown, you may remove your flag/thumbnail if you wish.  

'If it is clear your character is not clothed it is nudity.' My image A clearly is not clothed. A board is not clothes. So I conclude she is nude from this rule. But you wrote 'A: would not be nudity'. So, I don't understand. Your two sentences seem contradicting. With every new post I'm more confused than before. Thank you for your replies but I give up. These rules are too confusing. Like I said, I will wait for new rules.

ryuslilangel, after I post my answer I see that you deleted your answer to me. I don't understand. Are you confused too? :-)

Radom27, It has been stated twice so far that if genitals are not visible, it is not considered nude.  As we cannot see behind the board, we cannot conclude that she is nude because we cannot see whether or not she is nude.  Even if she IS nude behind the board, that is beside the point.  Genitals are not visible, therefore, it is not considered nude, by the way the TOS is worded.

JenX, thank for answer. What you say is not compatible what your coleague ryuslilangel said and deleted. She wrote 'If it is clear your character is not clothed it is nudity.' What your coleague wrote is compatible with terms. Nudity is defined there like this: 'No nudity in thumbnails. This means no clothes, clothes that are transparent or blurring of nude images.' You define diferent: 'if genitals are not visible, it is not considered nude.' This also compatible with terms, another sentence: 'Thumbnails for all areas of the site may not display nude female breasts, male or female genitals or buttocks' If nudity equal no clothes, figure A is nude. If nudity equal genitals not visible, figure A is not nude. You should make a decision about this. Your terms of service is not consistent and this makes everyone right and wrong at same time. JenX, you dont need answer to me. Like I said, I give up because this is too confusing.

Radom27,

I am telling you what the TOS states, and what the guidelines state.  Ryuslilangel may have misstated her point, but that's no reason to nitpick at it.  I have told you what the rules are, how they effect you, and that is literally all there is to it.  If you wish to make more of it than there is, that's totally on you, but I've told you what nudity is and what is stated in the TOS. neither of your figures is nudity, neither would require a flag or a special thumb.

JenX, I told you dont need to answer, I already gave up. I dont know why you insist. But if you insist, terms define nudity in a different way from you. Terms define nudity like 'No nudity in thumbnails. This means no clothes, clothes that are transparent or blurring of nude images.' Terms define nudity as no clothes or transparent clothes or blurring. Very clear. Means figure A is nude because has no clothes. You define nudity as no genitals visible. In your definition figure A is not nude because genitals are not visible. Very clear too but different from the other definition. Like said before, there is inconsistency. If rules are inconsistent, everyone discusses and everyone is wrong and right at same time.

Quote - > Quote - Jen,

So does that mean that my image I used as an example in my first post in this thread

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1991601

Will now be exempt from a nudity flag & special thumb nail, as genitals are not shown?

I hope that's true...

 

As there are no genitals shown, you may remove your flag/thumbnail if you wish.  

Thank you - that was a most beautifully executed U-turn!

I must admit I did not expect Rendo authorities to admit it isnt nudity, after such categorical declarations that it is. I was wrong - they are capable of listening.

Of course I'm happy my initial posting without a nudity flag was declared correct, and I will repost it without the flag and special thumbnail.

However, it doesnt fully solve the problem. It is still open to confussion and arguments(as random27's arguments point out, for example). Are you saying, Jen, that the tos will be fixed so the term 'no clothing' as defining images with nudity will be omitted? or is it a modification for moderators guidlines only? Are there other changes to the rules? when and where will all of these be announced?

Seems to me it is still left to random/arbitrary interpretation  by the moderators.

What about images with less than realistic representation of the human body? When are they 'nudity'? This is particularly pertinant for paintings. My painting 'links', I gave as example in my first post, was removed becuase I would not add a nudity flag. 

(you can see it at http://www.redbubble.com/people/artpearl/art/4799945-1-links )

According to the new 'sane' guidlines, can I now post it with no flag? the genitals of either character arnt visible. Her nipples are within sight line but arnt painted with any clarity. I think this is not more nudity than if she was painted wearing a body suit. What's the verdict here?

If you think I only care about my own images, another example, perhaps more extreme: The artist Anaber has the most beautiful drawings/paintings with figures who some might  interpret as wearing no clothes, but there are no specific brush strokes defining the genital areas or breasts. Are the figures in

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1957685&user_id=599251&page=3&member&np

nude? there is nothing to suggest clothes, nothing to obstract the body areas from line of view, but would anyone sane claim it requires a nudity flag?

Look at her gallery (worth it in any case)-she has some similar paintings in terms of partially abstract body representation, some are flaged for nudity and some arnt. Cant blame her- the rules are not clear, it's up to individuals how they interpret what they see.

I still maintain it is extremely hard(maybe impossible) and time consuming to device and police a good scheme for nudity flagging. Which brings me back to my original suggestion.

Allow me to flag my whole gallery as 'not suitable for sensitive people'. Make viewers declare themselves as 'sensitive'. That will activate a filter which will prevent them from seing any of my images. They will be saved from seeing my subversive/deviant posts. I can still post freely. I will NOT miss them, I dont care if they dont see any of my non controversial posts.

The issue of the netnanny was brought up earlier in the thread as an analogy why not to declare non-nude images as not suitable for all viewers. I dont understand this attitude. If site owners chose to encrypt their site, and dont mind if that loses them possible audiences, what right have you to complain about it? isnt it their perogative to limit their audience, isnt it? If you think your kids are missing out, check it out yourself.(or educate your kids to make the right decisions themselves. You trust an electronic brain more than your child's?)

Similarly in this case, if the artists dont mind losing a section of the audience, why should rendo make it their business to prevent that?

So, I know you had your yearly stuff meeting recently. Was this suggestion brought up?

What was the conclusion? why do you consistently refuse to  give me any feedback on that?

Thanks for listening. I'm hoping the trend towards sanity will continue.

The TOS does NOT need to be fixed, nor does any of the wording need to be fixed at this time.  The actual TOS has not changed.  What has changed is that we, the staff, are taking the TOS at face value, rather than injecting personal opinion.  It causes too much confusion, both on the staff and in the membership.  I have stated, several times in this and other threads, that the staff is working to better serve the membership and make this site a better experience, and I meant it every time.  

Nothing else will be changed, and the "not suitable for prudes/sensitive people" idea is, in and of itself, offensive to those who simply wish to not view nudity, Artpearl.  Wanting to filter nudity from viewing preferences does not make one a prude.  Sometimes, at least on this site, it simply means one is under 18.

I was not at the yearly admin meeting, as I am not an admin, I am simply a senior moderator.  

"The TOS does NOT need to be fixed, nor does any of the wording need to be fixed at this time.  The actual TOS has not changed."

How can that be? as random27 said in his posts, and I just checked again, the thumbnail rules in the tos state "No nudity in thumbnails. This means no clothes,..." Image A of random27 and my image 'Pearls place' include no clothes. Yet you say the new guidlines allow it. How come? does not seem consistent to me. Back to confussion and conflicts...Clarity of rules and guidlines to artists and moderators is the absolute minimum requirement. They have to be clearly visible to all. As far as I know your new more sane guidlines have only been mentioned here, not enough for everyone to know and understand.

"the staff is working to better serve the membership and make this site a better experience, and I meant it every time.  "

I have no reason to doubt you have good intentions and you mean well, but the actions suggested so far on the issues I've raised do not improve the situation in any significant manner. Is there more in the new guidlines than you mentioned here? It should be made public, preferably inluded in the tos so everyone is aware.

"Nothing else will be changed, and the "not suitable for prudes/sensitive people" idea is, in and of itself, offensive to those who simply wish to not view nudity, Artpearl.  Wanting to filter nudity from viewing preferences does not make one a prude.  Sometimes, at least on this site, it simply means one is under 18."

It isnt about the wording. If my statement seems offensive use another one. How about

"not suitable for all viewers' or 'not suitable for under 18s' or 'for mature viewers only' or 'not suitable for office viewing' or just 'content advisory' or any other judgemnet free statement. The point is enabling the artist to flag their gallery as a whole with a warning, and enable viewers to filter out such galleries if they want too. If the artist can avoid decisions about flagging specific images, viewers who by their own judgment are mature can watch without censorship, and viewers who object to nudity arnt confronted with it. What's the flaw in this scheme?

"I was not at the yearly admin meeting, as I am not an admin, I am simply a senior moderator.  "

I dont know what the administrative structure of renderosity is, and I dont want to know. I posted my concerns and questions in a renderosity forum and I presumed renderosity people who answer have the knowledge and authority to do so. If a senior moderator cant answer, for whatever reason, they should refer the issue to the powers that be with the knowledge and authority, and ask them to come on th eforum and answer.

(Please dont advice me to e-mail admin privately. I posted in a public forum becuase these are public issues, I expected to have a public answer. Any answer I would get in an e-mail I'm not allowed to quote, so I wouldnt be able to inform the rest of the public)

What about my questions about posting paintings? what are the rules and guidlines with regard to those? If I am to return to posting here I need to know these rules as I will probably have more paintings then CG images to post.

What about my question about the need for clarification of the rules/guidlines about commercial posts? there are still no explanations in the vue forum, and there are still questionable posts. There may well be guidlines for moderators, and there is a 'stickie' for poser users, why nor for vue users?

What about my original questions about updates to issues raised in the suggestion box forum? Can anyone who was in the last meeting give us any information?

As for radom27's image with the square in front of him...

Due to the fact that we cannot see behind the square, we cannot speculate whether or not there is clothing behind it.  That would be like me deciding that you are a fish based on your avatar and sticking to it (defying all logic that fish can't type and probably wouldn't be posting here if they could).  So, no, it doesn't fall into the "no clothes" category, because no one BUT radom27 knows whether there are clothes on it, and debating about it all day does nothing but waste time.

We're not adding that feature, ArtPearl.  Ever.  If you would like that feature, I would suggest you start your own website, and add that feature to it.  

I'm  not sure about your question on posting paintings.  People have been posting paintings here since day 1.  All  rules and guidelines pertain to ALL images on all parts of the site.

If you can email me specifics of what you're talking about in the Vue forum (jenx@renderosity.com) so I can compare what is going on, I would gladly do it.  IF necessary, I'll meet with TheBryster to see if something needs to be changed.  But, without knowing what I'm looking for, I'm likely to spend all day searching for posts.

We WILL be updating the community on changes that are taking place.  We're not done yet, and I've asked you for months to be patient.  NO change that has taken place on this site has happened overnight, and we're working hard to make sure ALL aspects of what we do benefit the community, so it will still be a while yet.  We are shooting for an announcement by the beginning of the year, but I will not make any promises.

Dont worry. For a minute, when you changed your mind about the need for nudity flag on my image I thought I could hear the sound of reason and sanity returning to renderosity. It was obviousely just a fluke, things are as arbitrary as they have  been before.I presented perfectly logical arguments, and instead of answering those or accepting them, you come back with 'That's the way we do things here. Like it or lump it'

Kids who are stamped and cant find a a sensible answer in an argument often weasel out of the situation  with the declaration 'I dont want to play with you anymore, go play somewhere else'. I see you think this approach is appropriate for an adult in an official capacity...:)

That was quite entertaining. Thanks for that!

I'm not sure what this last post is all about, but if you're expecting change overnight, it's not going to happen at any site.  I suggest that, if you're interested in change, that you grow interest in some patience as well.  As I've said repeatedly, changes have already started to take place, many of them changes that you, yourself, have asked for!  No one ever gets everything that they want, and I've been telling you from the beginning that the feature you want implemented is not only a bad idea, but we wouldn't even consider it on a bet.  

What my last post was about is clarity and transparency in the flow of information and communication with members. Ignoring points I raise or just saying "this is a bad idea" without giving reason is not an acceptable way to conduct business. Telling me to make my own site when I offer suggestions of improvements of this site is not a grown up behaviour. I expect information to be available about what is being accepted/considered/rejected even if implementation may take time. I dont expect things to change over night, but I'm no spring chicken so I worry I may not live long enough to see any of the implementation.

I'm pleased to hear "many of them changes that you, yourself, have asked for!". I wasnt aware I asked for "many" or maybe it's been too long for my elderly brain to remember, but it's nice to know. Wish you could give some hints what they were about. Perhaps I would have been less likely to conclude there is no real 'list' of user suggestions if information was kept about the general status of suggestions along the way.

So - I'm giving up on this thread yet again. I left it for a long time as I didnt see any likelyhood of progress. If it wasnt for random27's enquiry and your reply about the new "sane" interpretation I wouldnt have returned in hope of further developments. But your subsequent replies indicate there is no real change. Without major new policies and clearer well publicized information to the users about what's nudity, what's commercial posting, what's the status of their suggestions - I dont see any way to resume posting on this site.

I shall check in from time to time to see what are the new things you hint are about to happen, but I'm not holding my breath...

I presume you were trying your best - thanks for that, but sorry so far it wasnt sufficient.

I do many pictures that may or may not, in the final outcome, be considered nude.  I DO, however, flag them as nudity.   This is not because I have to but because I know that many do not want to see breasts or crotches nude in the galleries thumbnails and I do it out of respect and not because of the rules..  If I want to post nude thumbnails I have been doing this long enough to know there are sites that are there for that very purpose.

What I find offensive myself is that I can work a very long time setting up a picture and trying my d*mnedest to make a good work and it will get very little notice and if I show a set of breasts I get tons of views.. That IS pornographic to me...

It does NOT bother me in the slightest to leave nudity out of my thumbs.  It does not effect me as I know what the full size looks like and if someone wants to know they have but to click that thumb and view the picture.. My pictures have not been censored EVER!!  I have been asked about questionable thumbs and have no problem changing them once I realized it did not effect the full size pictures at all.  There is no censorship in the full size pictures and the only reason I can see a purpose in a fuss over the thumbs is when a person believes they are not getting enough attentions for the nudity in their pictures... 

Quote - What I find offensive myself is that I can work a very long time setting up a picture and trying my d*mnedest to make a good work and it will get very little notice and if I show a set of breasts I get tons of views.. That IS pornographic to me...

I agree with your plight in this respect.  While I have nothing against artistic nudity, and tasteful nudity, I find of late the galleries are being over-run by just tasteless and poorly conceived images that solely exist to depict nudity. At least, this is how I perceive it sometimes.  Since I primarily browse just the sci-fi gallery, with the rare and occasional look into Fantasy, I am really unhappy with the quantity of nudes that are appearing.  Many of them as well are being created with Poser - which only serves to further blacken the name of that application and prevent it from being taken seriously by some in the industry for the powerful tool it can be.  I have seen way too many images with misleading thumbnails, that once opened were a poorly orchestrated image of just nudity - often with little regard for pose, camera position, and using default lighting.  Most of them had inumerable views, and lots of ratings averaging to a 5, with tons of one or two word comments about it being great.  As an artist, this disheartens me, as those most likely creating these images do not take it at all seriously, and just want an excuse to showcase nudity.  I feel it serves to cheapen the artform, and the community as a whole.

That is my humble opinion, and I will no doubt be flamed and insulted for it. I could care less these days though.