There seems to be a disturbing trend of overbearing caution of exactly what constitutes "nudity" lately. Take a look at this scene (not one on mine, BTW):

https://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/lets-toast-to-happy-voyages-and-business-ventures-/2969620/

Do you see any "nudity" in this? I sure don't. I see an alien character in an orange and purple bodysuit, but I sure don't see anything that could be construed as nudity in any way shape or form. There are certainly no "naughty bits" visible anywhere.

A very long-time artist here was deeply hurt by a reprimand on this image, and has discontinued what was a fun and well done story because of it.

I completely understand the need to implement some kind of community standards here, and agree in principal. But it seems to me this case is just a little bit overkill.

Some of the art on the site leaves no doubt as to its inclusion as nudity (and I've done some myself), and are tagged as such. But should a figure in a bodysuit really be considered nudity when there are no genitals / nipples visible? Could one of the Mods please look into this?

Thanks for your time and consideration.

"not one on mine, BTW" should be "Not one OF mine, BTW" I can't type... ?

At first glance, I took him as being totally nude, except for the head, hands and boots he's wearing.

That said, if it IS a bodysuit, then another color wouldn't have looked like naked skin. Nudity, like a lot of other things are all relative as to how we, individually, see them. If I were set on using that color for the bodysuit, I too would have marked it for Nudity, simply because I'm not sure how the other viewers would see it. It's often better to be cautious than to run into trouble with the Mods because someone reported it as Nudity, and it had no warning.

Unfortunately, there are no telling details that distinguish the bodysuit from bare skin, and the choice of color only creates the illusion of nudity that distracts the viewer from the main point of the render. Seams, clothing textures, folds, etc. would have been eliminated any doubt of nudity and would blend the character into the scene. The question: was this an oversight by the artist or was it intentional to draw the viewer's eye immediately to that spot? Awkwardly, the center of attraction in the scene is entirely shifted to the right forcing your eye to chase the focal point. Granted, the render looks interesting but the perspective is troubling.

I understand where you're coming from. But at the same time - especially where there is any uncertainty at all - erring on the side of consideration for the other artist's feelings might be a better angle. Perhaps a personal sitemail asking if it was intended as a nude figure or just a body-suit (rather than just reporting it) would save some misunderstanding and hurt feelings.

This artist had a fun story going, and has now quit and possibly left the site. Not blaming you, understand, but perhaps contacting the artist might with the explanation you provided here help smooth things over a bit. Just a suggestion, and that would be entirely up to you, of course. Thanks for your response.

BTW... Not pointing fingers at anyone, just saying let's take the other artist's feelings into consideration. Don't know who 'reported' it and don't care. Just saying think before hurting someone's feelings.

I don't think he intended that orange suit to be misinterpreted as skin - especially since the character's skin was purple... ?

My question still stands, though. Where do we draw the line? Mods?

Oh, I totally agree with you. This just appears to be a poor choice of color and costuming that caught a moderator's eye. It's unfortunate that it has become a public spectacle at the expense of the artist's creativeness and storytelling. There should always be a sense of respectability and sensitivity between an artist and a moderator, with cordial dialogue conducted and resolved through private communication and corrected through the proper protocols. Unfortunately, there are individuals that have nothing else better to do than to quickly target and openly criticize artists for content without closer inspection.

Right on, good sir. You said it far better than I could / did! ??

Mods? Any input?

Please keep in mind we mods are human. There are close to 200 hundred images uploaded everyday for us to check. Sometimes, we make mistakes. If you think one of us acted in error, please contact us and explain. I understand it can be upsetting to have an image moderated in error. I've been there on another site. But it's more likely to get resolved with a sitemail to the mod rather than posting an angry thread in the forums or an image in the gallery. And also please give us time to respond. We aren't on here all the time.

And to answer the question what is considered nudity, from the TOS "The nudity flag must be checked if the uploaded image shows more skin than the amount you would see when wearing a thong bikini. Nudity flag must be checked if any portion of the female nipple is exposed." This does include clothing that is sheer and often body paint. You can find the TOS here, https://www.renderosity.com/mod/wiki/?policies&terms and there is a link in the about menu at the bottom of every page.

As a staff member, I agree that this image shouldn't have been flagged. What saddens me is that the member took it as a personal slight.

Fairness is a huge priority for our gallery staff. We often have thoughtful discussions about which images should and shouldn't be flagged. That said, please keep in mind that each of us are checking dozens of images per day. No matter how careful we are, we're bound to make mistakes every now and again.

When this happens, it's simple human error, not a personal attack/intended slight. We also welcome (and encourage) feedback, especially over policies that seem unclear.

Again, I'm very sorry this member was hurt. I wish they'd reached out and given us a chance to resolve the issue, but for what it's worth, I've gone ahead and untagged the image. I do hope they'll change their mind about discontinuing their story – I'm sure those who follow it would love to see it through to its conclusion.

Thank you very much, both RedPhantom and Heatherly. Your efforts and hard work are truly appreciated - at least by some of us. I can well imagine it can be quite a job to monitor all the uploads here each day.

Personally, I've not had a problem with anything being flagged (the one that was recently had a nudity tag added, and I had no issue with that). I was just saddened to see the resulting pain it caused. I'll try reaching out to that member, and perhaps he'll have a change of heart.

Again, thank you both so much for your response and all your hard work on this site. You are appreciated!

You're welcome, Rod, and thank you for alerting us to the issue. As RedPhantom said, we can always be reached via sitemail if you have any further concerns.

Have a great weekend!

I've chuckled to see shader promos with content advisories. Not figures with garments that shaders were used on, just tiles showing textures and colours. I think it has to do with colouring, but still silly.

MarkCM posted at 3:07PM Fri, 25 December 2020 - #4404769

I've chuckled to see shader promos with content advisories. Not figures with garments that shaders were used on, just tiles showing textures and colours. I think it has to do with colouring, but still silly.

Fits perfectly to the TOS then, which also is quite silly... it allows for the dirty minds of some people to fill in stuff that isn't really intended. Like seeing something sexual in a nade person licking the tip of a carrot for example. And not being able to give a clear answer if posting the picture of a naked person licking an ice cream cone would or not would considered "sexual" and therefor bannable... not only a need for marking it as "nude", but bannable for showing a sexual act. Licking an ice cream cone.... wow...