"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?

"I paint that which comes from the imagination or from dreams, or from an unconscious drive. I photograph the things that I do not wish to paint, the things which already have an existence."
Man Ray, modernist painter
http://artpearl.redbubble.com/