Kudos Clint! I applaud your sense of fair play and your ability to admit a call that you felt may not have been warrented! Not many people thank a moderator for being so fair or admire him for being able to make such tough calls and tough admitions, but I for one really appriciate it. This particular issue of one image being considered 'unacceptable' but tons of others that are the same or worse being OK, is very personal to me. It was the cause of my leaving the Yerf.com galleries and urging others to boycott their unfair practices. My artwork (All /clearly/ furry, all fully clothed, All single characters in no way sexual positions.... one dancing, one pouncing upon a mouse, and one posing rather snobbishly) were all removed and my entire gallery was deleted without a warning. I received a rather terse message about it not being their type of art and take it to some smutt site. I at least had a friend who took the bombshell of a flame I was writing to the powers that be and made them aware of what was going on (The bombshell was about 3 full pages of nothing but links of people's artwork that showed full frontal nudity, sexually suggestive poses, and non furry art that had been there for over 6 months and no one had touched it or even objected). The Powers that be though stated that while they would return my gallery, they were still going to uphold a bad ruling by a powermad administrater that thought that tiny toon furries were the only thing acceptable. They would allow me to stay on, but they supported his decision to be a pr*ck and supported a call they knew and admitted was a bad one. I was the only one they attacked, everyone else's art stayed up and nothing changed. Thus I have personally boycotted Yerf.com for 3 years. When I contacted them three months ago about returning now that they apparently had cleaned house, they asked me why I left. I sent them copies of the entire fiasco and they never contacted me back. Apparently they weren't so cleaned up as they let on.... that or they're still nursing the implied black eye I gave that jerk of a moderator. I am so thankful that this place has such nice people, that it can be talked out and bad or questionable calls can be discussed, and the moderators are so mature as to be able to see that their call might have been in error or even a bit too difficult to make without public opinion. HUGS!! I very much agree with the way this thread seems to be going. A ruling that does not apply to everyone, should apply to /NO ONE/. Either it is universally enforced or it is universally ignored. No exceptions, no excuses. Anything else is unfair. Border line cases are always difficult, but each borderline case should result in the consideration of the current regulations and if a rewording should be in order to make the line more clear. I realize that it's difficult to make the that decision when the line is hazy and I applaud someone being able to face it so well, but that the rule could be misconstrued to apply to one but not another of near the same picture implies to me that the TOS needs to be reworded to include such a situation and the site's stand on it. Just my thoughts ;) The 200lb Gorilla