Here's the full text of an email I got today from Spike, who is apparently one of the mods. I asked his permission to post it here and he said, exact quote:"If I said no, I am sure you would anyway." I took this as a yes. So here goes--I'll let you-all draw your own conclusions. **** I understand your upset because we removed a image that you feel was fine. Then you posted a image that was to be a slap in our faces. That's acting like a adult. Reading from the TOS: First event - warning by email and/or IM. Second event Forum Suspension for 1 or 7 days or Temporary Community ban for 3 or 7 days. Third event Membership revoked, and access to the community permanently blocked. This includes any duplicate accounts for the same person. Renderosity considers this information private and confidential. However, there may be certain situations that necessitate otherwise. So by all rights, we could ban you for 7 days here. If I were you, I would drop this matter and get on with your renderings. If you want to contune this little game, please direct your e-mails to me. Thanks Spike Moderator and Forum Manager www.renderosity.com

I should add that Spike, to his credit, has backed off a bit, and no longer appears to be threatening to ban me.

Funny. He says get on with your renderings, but I guess this is assuming you don't post them here. This issue is one of the things that we as a community need to demand. How does this image break the TOS in it's current state? Does this mean that the TOS is basically a legal front door just to protect yourself, but we as members of the community will get no protection whatsoever? We really need answers to these questions. The lack of answers is just making the situation worse.

Spike has been a little quick on the trigger lately, eh?

Hi Ok guys I think you are missing the point It'a not pornography Its cruelty, what a thing to do to to a poor inocent fairy we really don;t want to encourage that now do we! (tongue firmly in cheek!) Dave

Ah mannnn....I used to work with Spike out at Xerox R&D. He was one of the "good guys". NOw, that lil fairy....lmao...she has the class of a cockatoo on cauliflower.....omg....I sure didn't need THOSE memories ;*) Pop...Pop...Poppi!!!

I checked the other threads and didn't see it posted yet.

"I understand your upset because we removed a image that you feel was fine. Then you posted a image that was to be a slap in our faces. " Technically the second image that you posted covered all of the genitalia so you did not actually re-post the same image therefore it's not a bannable offense. If we were to take this at face value then you would not be able to paint clothe on the fairy and repost her because she had already been banned. And she looked like she was having such a good time too..

Hey another idea... Ok I seem to remember a book about the cottingly faries yes i know it was drawn in the late victorian era but the faries had dresses on... In my opinion as what was the phrase 'repressed english man' or somesuch that alluded to that....I actually think that both women and men look better with clothes on alludes to a certain mystique...hang on before you hit Me with the fly swatter (please) it doesn't have to be the Jawa type clothing from the middle east burka isn't it? but how about some diaphanous silks/cobwebs or leaves or feathers think of this not so much as censoring your ideas but a challenge to make them look realistic? And that way even the Pc (I never know which wing) politicians can't complain. btw with regard to soft porn (adult) pictures, I prefer the more artistic aproach rather than Hey look at what i've got in vivid detail, most times my imagination is much better! dave

FYI, The second image was still nude. I think your thinking of the third version.

Hey Spike, Taken from a previous post here: "No nude artwork, animations or photographs of children under the age of 18 will be allowed anywhere on the site, however, artwork showing babies in a non sexual setting will be allowed, provided there is no showing of genitalia." I tyhink this would fit the bill with one exc exception. You can't say under the age of 18 because digital models do not have an age. You would have to say something to the effect of, "Under the apparent physical age of 18." This would at least clear it up and cover the recent deletions. Now this doesn't mean I agree with the limitation, but it would at least state it. This way we would know that any image, regardless of content, depicting what appears to be a youthfull figure will be removed. Now just so people don't get to up in arms about it, why not say something like this: "No nude artwork, animations or photographs of children under the age of 18 with genitals, buttocks or breasts exposed will be allowed anywhere on the site." This could allow us to show a nude image of a child as long as those parts considered by some to be obcene are obscured. We could show it as long as there are leaves, cloth, or cropping done to hide these areas. It would still allow us to express our visions, and yet still give a clear line that we can not cross. So what do you say?

The Problem with the age limit thing is this was a rendering of a fairy, she could be 150 years old and look 15. This is becoming tedious. First admin makes the forums unbearable by locking threads and banning anyone with an opinion. Then they take away the choice of nominating AOM, now they ban perfectly innocent art work.The only thing I still found interesting here were the gallerys ,and how soon after mass deletions of art will the artists book on out of here? Another fine decision from TPTB.

Even in real life there are 20 year-olds that are "petite" or "youthful" and 13-year olds that are "you gotta be kidding me" (at least, so I've heard ). I don't envy the Mods. They have to walk a fine line between us as artists and those sick, disgusting psycho perverts with filthy minds that see sex in everything and are willing to take legal action.

Oh I agree with both spiritbro and bobasaur, but if there are going to be deletions then we need a rules stating it in the TOS. Keep in mind that I did write my recommendation with a small loophole. In order for the image to break TOS, genitals, buttocks or breasts have to be visible. If they are cleverly hidden you can get your image in. This I believe will fulfill the spirit of what renderosity is trying to do and yet allow us as artists to post our works without fear. About the age thing, notice I mentioned "apparent age". So what if it is a well endowed 14 year old. The apparent age there is well above 14. Yes this would prevent you from posting something with an apparent age younger but an implied age of older. Take it as a challenge to cleverly hide the listed body locations. If done successfully the image will not suffer, nor will it break the new proposed TOS. I have been very vocal about my dislike of these actions by the mods but it hasn't been until now that I have been able to come up with a possible solution that may work for both sides.

Well, this certainly is an issue of opinion and speech, which is what the First Amendment is all about.

I probably would have more respect for the works of the mods if all were treated as equals. But i do not think that this is true here.

Is there still a Renderotica site? (After checking them out some time ago, I decided that it just wasn't the place for me.) Maybe you should post images that are as questionable as the one being described (I can't give a complete judgement because I didn't see the work in question)on that site as the rules are less strict there. As suggested by some of the above replies, there are many ways to treat nudity in more subtle ways without getting too "graphic" (sorry about the pun, I couldn't help it). Are we trying to make an artistic statement or just tweak people's noses until they go out-of-joint? Do you want the job of "Renderosity Police"? I don't. Let's give them a break and the benefit of the doubt, eh? :^)

Hmmm, I've been an admin for almost all of my working life, and some of the few constants are: You never get any respect. People only remember you when it goes wrong. Users never learn. etc. The flip side of this is when you're a user on somebody elses system, at which point you get bolshy as hell when you don't get your own way... :P Spike, if you're lucky, people won't start posting images specially crafted to offend while not breaking the TOS. I remember when Compuserve started using software to censor what people could say in the forums, the users simply curcumnavigated this by using the terms peek, poke and byte for entirely different uses than those originaly envisaged... "all human life is here" :) later jb

For me, the most disturbing part of Spike's email to me is this sentence: "If I were you, I would drop this matter and get on with your renderings." Basically, shut up and keep buying stuff. Or, as we used to say back when I worked retail: The Customer Is Always Wrong.

Ok tjohn then let the admin state that no nudity at all is welcome on this site. Period! Then everyone will know the rules. I did see the work in question and it was a graphic of a FAIRY not a child,and it was an innocent pose, nothing sexual at all.Even if it was a child it wasnt sexual.And like I said it wasnt a child, that fairy could have been 500 years old. Thats what Fairys look like. Anyone with half a brain could tell that this was just a typical rendering of a fairy. So fine, if they are going to remove pictures like this then they damned well shouldnt be selling nude children figures in the market place and if nudity is banned then they damned well better state it in the TOS and delete 90 percent of the Poser Gallery while they are at it. I guess we will all have to state at the bottom of our work that we certify that this digital model is over the age of 18 and he or she has the Birth certificate to prove it LMAO. I guess since we are the ones that give birth to these creations we can give them Birth certificates as well huh?

Just forget it. The admins here are trigger-happy, but selective. If anyone would tell me that a pic is first deleted then argued why it was deleted, I would not have a hard time believing him.

Why not follow the simple democratic way for the whole situation....seperate the nude graphics from the non-nudes and post it clearly as "Bare Ass Fairies", "150-Year Old Teenie Boppers", or whatever; if people get upset at viewing them, they have been forewarned and should be banned for trespassing in an area they are not welcome. Even Renderotica which is geared primarily towards art that dare not be posted on other sites has an "R" and "X" rated warning on their galleries.

Actually Mondo, we already have that. It is called the Nudity flag. If you don't want to see nudity just set that in your preferences.

I do know about the nudity flag...but to make my point a bit plainer: It seems there are those who are not disturbed by nudity per se unless the 'age' of the character is questionable. I was referring more to a 'sub-nudity tag' for those particular graphics.