Despite whatever you may think about the issue being discussed (and I'm staying out of it this time around, because I can see both sides to some extent), I feel that Spike and the PTB deserve credit for their willingness to let the members have a say in this matter. For a while there, this site seemed to have become awfully oppresive and degenerated into a battle between "Us" and "Them". But very recently I've noticed a definite change in the attitude of the admin of this site, and it's most assuredly a change for the better. And nothing illustrates that change better than this episode, where the PTB have actually removed a new change to the TOS and are willing to let the members decide the issue. A couple of months ago, that just wouldn't have happened. It's definite a step in the right direction, and they deserve a little credit for it. So, since no one else has said it, I will: Thank you Spike, and all of the rest of the Powers That Be, for listening to us again, and giving us a chance to have a say in the evolution of this site. To do an abrupt about-face like that and admit that you may have been wrong took a lot of courage, and some of us DO appreciate that. We now return you to your regularly scheduled flame war, already in progress.

Like Gabriel, I am impressed with how this was dealt with. People didn't get nasty, they just voiced their concerns, and the admins showed they were willing to listen. Of course, I'm not going to go as far as Gabriel did and throw in a backhanded accusation about other members cheating in the AOM. That would seem to negate the whole "people didn't get nasy" comment...

Thanks! This means a lot to us. Gabriel, this AOM issue is over now, lets move on.

just read the TOS, i cant see any changes... ? wheres the new one, or what was added? having trouble finding it.

oh, this? : (Any post or image can be removed at the discretion of staff if it is deemed unsuitable for this community) well, its not really a solution for us, spike, just for the mods/admins. itll give you a way to stop arguments about 'why did you remove my image? it says nothing in the TOS about (yadda yadda)'... but it doesnt give a clear indication as to what IS acceptable and what ISNT. personally, id have been happier with something black and white, like this is allowed, and this isnt. this is still wide open to argument, and you may have some mods remove an image which others would find perfectly suitable. then again, the issue doesnt affect me much. i think i have one image only in my gallery in which the age could possibly be disputed, and its not in a pose of a sexual nature. but im sure others would like something concrete to put this age-old argument to rest, once and for all.

Well if you plan on covering up any child like image seemingly under the age of 18 then your going to have to recall ALL of your Renderosity magazines first issue. On the cover is a clearly underage child with no clothes on except for shades. So get moving on the recall folks and good luck enforcing this. Most of the Poser gallery is of young nude women. And unless they all have ID's you are going to have to pull them.If she looks 18 she might just be underage and wheres the proof of age coming from? I guess any time you post a new image you will have to state something like this huh? I testify that this CG model is over the age of 18 and when I rendered it I was thinking of he she it being over that age, here is a birth certificate to prove it. WTF are you people crazy or what? I have never seen child porn here , the image that caused this disscussion was no where near porn it wasnt even erotic or of a child it was of a FAIRY for gods sake and in a very innocent pose as well. Boo to the people that pulled this image and BOO to the censor happy admin for going off the deap end once again.

It really doesn't matter how you write what you write or how many clear cut rules you put in the TOS, there will still be grey areas. And the more you try to pin it down, the greyer it becomes. For God's sake, this country has thousands and thousands of laws and the more we get, the more unclear things become. You think because it's a law and in writing, it's clear? Then why do we need lawyers and judges to interpret them and why do they refer to previous cases and interpretations of the laws all the time? It's good to try to make a TOS clear, but you cannot ever completely clearly define everything. There's too much that's subjective. And that's where it becomes the moderator's responsibility to make a decision and the member's responsibility to live with it.

Ooooh hoooo! For those of you who, understandably, missed it amongst all the hubbub, please read Spike's post #41 in this thread. And thank you so much for that post, x2000!

And DTHUREGRIF, for understanding how difficult it can eb to try to please everyone, more or less. ;]

I'm sure it will return, but that's cool with me. I'm covered. Since we know that change is what the owners of the site want, they'll get it. after all, it is thier site, not ours, we are here at thier pleasure.

Glad this new TOS was overturned... what scares me is the thought that this needs to be clearly expressed. Of course, it is easy to believe that when you view people as nothing more than sheep that need to be led around. So here's a thoughtful idea that would remove the grey areas everyone is so concerned about... don't allow ANY nudity on Renderosity... that will keep the puritans here happy... ...of course it would kill any value to this site considering 9/10th's of the art dipicted here contains nudity... Then again, it is most difficult to be "rulers" if you don't have rules... the more rules you have the more powerful you look when you get to flex them there muscles. We are humbled by your might. :o) ~Jack "the wonders why he even bothers anymore" man

Inasmuch as Poser has not been around for 18 years, and Vicki and Mike for just a couple, all the models are under the age of 18. Better remove all the nude renders ;)

Yeah that's sarcastic and stupid, but its the same kind of insanity as pulling a nude fairy because you think it "looks" young. Fairies are mythical magical creatures with commonly accepted standards of their appearance...small, slender, and delicately featured. That doesn't make them children. They could be 500 years old and look the exact same. Hell, its part of their appeal.

IMHO this demonstrates the problem with trying to prevent any form of nudity that "might appear" to be someone of a certain age. I submit that trying to write that into the TOS and enforce it in any kind of fair and reasonable manner is impossible. It leaves far too much open to interpretation, and depends too much on the bias and attitude of the individual viewer.

Tonight, I had a dramatic demonstration that nudity of small children is neither offensive nor pornographic. Primetime did another special about the Dilly Six Pack (the first sextuplets born in the US for those of you who don't know). During the lead-in then again in one of the segments, they showed all six children (boys and girls) taking a bath together. Even the penis was shown in these segments, and there weren't any censor bars. We're talking US network television here folks...the most repressed mass media outlet we have. If ABC can show it to millions over broadcast airwaves, I sure don't see any reason for Renderosity to freak out about it.

Right now, the TOS prohibits:

• Depictions of physical arousal or sexual acts.
• Genital contact with ANY object, other than sitting or clothing.

Why is this not sufficient? It doesn't say "adult physical arousal" or "human sexual acts". So why do children, fairies, etc. have to be specifically named? Is there some reason this can't simply be applied equally to all images?

"Depictions of children/young teens in erotic, seductive, provocative poses or context. This includes human and humanoid characters such as fey folk, aliens, etc." This makes sense. It covers anything that may be viewed as a problem but leaves room for all the wee fairies to fly in. When you enter the galleries, it clearly states that some images may contain nudity and mature content. If people don't want to see this.. DON'T LOOK! It's really very simple! The Admin here has so much to deal with. This is not a small or new site.. It has grown to mammoth proportions. A very small handful of good people are given the daunting task of managing over 80,000 members! They might stumble sometimes.. They are human after all.. So I really don't think we should be calling for the hangman when it happens. I have been a member here for a very long time and have seen a number of "powers that be" running the place. They have all made mistakes.. but they have all tried very hard to make us, the artists, happy. The present admins are an outstanding bunch of people and I for one, am very grateful to them for the superhuman effort they put in day after day. So to everyone that makes Renderosity what it is... Admins and members alike, a big thank you from me.. I love this place and hope to continue coming here for many years to come... Best regards, Noel.

The "Don't Look" principle was what I was really getting at with my previous post. Let me give you an example: I find the movie "Natural Born Killers" offensive, distasteful, hideous, unnecessarily crude and vulgar, written for shock value, and appallingly violent. It contains scenes of murder for fun, incest, domestic abuse, and other distasteful subject matter. Do I try to have it removed from rental store shelves, or have the copies burned? No... I simply don't rent it. Oliver Stone has a right to make the movie, and I have the right not to view it. I feel the same "Don't look" principle should apply to every artistic form of expression, and should apply here.

it does seem like one "OH CRAP" erases dozens of "Atta-Boys" sometimes doesnt' it?

Especially if there are politics involved; or even good ol' fashioned trolling. I wonder how difficult it would be to mount an anonymous email campaign against certain images, or image types, to the admin of this site. Multiple anonymous remailers, or even multiple free emaiil accounts, creating multiple memberships, with the intent to stir up trouble. What's the most entertaining way to get a rise out of an entire community of artists? Manipulate the administration into needless censorship by creating the illusion of a problem. Maybe that's a paranoid scenario, but is it really so far fetched considering the events of the past few months?

Maybe that's a paranoid scenario, but is it really so far fetched considering the events of the past few months? chuckle no not far fetched at all... in fact a few members with personal vendettas do work hard at those types of games. fortunately we've got some nice tools available to help us track these things and generally we try to react cautiously and evenly, though we are human and are subject to bad hair days like everyone else. not sure if anyone explained what typically happens 'behind the scenes' when a site-wide change is made... first, the issue has to be an issue with enough feedback for the mods to all agree it's an issue. this gets discusssed by the mods. if a concencus is reached that action is required, we all, every one on the staff here, admins and mods work to figure out what they feel is the most reasonable solution. in this case, the majority of the moderators here felt that we needed to clarify some of the guidelines to help them make more constant decisions. with the increasing number of uploads, it was getting stressful for the staff here to make judgement call after judgement call using what they felt was a vague guideline. they got a bit tired of being chewed to pieces on what they personally felt was the right thing to do and wanted some better provisions to help them decide on future actions (we've had a huge influx of moderators to help cover the new forums, and fill in where some of the older forums had grown so, in addition this, everything was getting re-evaluated from a 'fresher' perspective anyway.) SO, after the group does their best to address something... we send poor Spike out as the 'Moderator Representative' to make the public announcement. what some people erroneously call the clandestine and 'corporate money grubbing PTB' behind the scenes here is actually the entire mod staff working together to address something they though was a problem. the 'owners' of the site really don't have any more input in these things than any of the individual mods.... unless there is a legal reason for them to override something, they generally don't. in this case, it looks like the group needs to rethink and re-evaluate based on the content of this thread... i don't think anyone on the staff here has a problem with that. and the intent is really to find something that really works for both the mods and the members to get along in peace.

It seems like the pro-nude-fairy faction is making a mountain out of a molehill. Renderotica and PoserPros are willing to host nude fairies, so why are the nude-fairy storm-troopers trying to force Renderosity against its will? It's Renderosity that will take the hit if some over-zealous Tennessee D.A. decides he or she wants to prosecute over images that may appear to them to be nude 11 or 14-year-old girls. So let the pro-nude-fairy faction take the risk instead, and quit trying to use grade-school hyperbole, intimidation and ridicule to dupe somebody else into being the fall guy or nude-fairy stooge. It's one thing if you protest free speech violations after getting silenced for challenging authority or standing up against oppression, but for the sake of sanity, don't get into these guerrilla tactics over your urge to leer at 11-year-old nude girls.

Nice tactic nyar1ath0tep: give a dog a bad name and you can shot him. :P I don't really like fairy pics, but I stand with the 'pro-nude-fairy faction' on this topic. Anyone who is interested in history knows one thing: If you see something bad happen to somebody else you have to fight for him, otherwise there is probably nobody left to help, if something bad is happening to you.

Mad Yuri, I agree totally with what you say here. As for the actual issue at hand, My suggestion was just that. If they wanted a rule in order to stop these types of images I feel that what I suggested would cover it. Yes that would mean these images would not be allowed but at least we would have a rule to judge it by. With the current removal of an image that doesn't break any of the rules this has become an issue. On the other hand, the process is already in place if you want to be able to include these images. The nudity flag is for this purpose. If someone complains because they are seeing nudity, the image shouldn't be removed, the complainer should be told about the no nudity option. Give them the benefit of the doubt and simply educate them on this in the beginning. If they fail to use that and still complain, I would consider that disruptive to the community at large by way of harrasing the mods and that too is handled in the TOS. They can easily be banned from the site.

Banning 'hate crimes' could get very touchy. For instance; where does this fall: http://www.dominionpost.com/a/news/2002/01/30/bj/amideast.jpg (you'll have to go there on your own). Is it a political statement about colonialism and oppression or is it a statement of racism? Answer really does depend on who you ask. On my banned image: The other day I got an email saying I could post it again. But I'm still unsure because this issue seems to be unresolved still. My last deletion came with a warning putting me 'on probation' and I'd hate to get invited back then banned over what I was invited back to do... :) Now I'm about 40% through this thread... (Can I hold off posting till I finish... :) ) "Remove an image from the gallery when someone is brought up on charges for it, not before." At least in the 3D work; this is highly unlikely thanks the Supreme Court. At least for the Americans. Somebody at one point was posting turn of the 20th century photos of tribeswomen; if any of those women were underage that could very well 'become an issue'. But not before the powers that be take down National Geographic... OFF TOPIC: "the only people that will vote for the hot20, or AOM" Also I've never voted becuase I've never been able to find a link that let me the results of the voting. :) Polls in the net are inherently flawed though. I'm a member of an RPG forum where the members held a writing contest. In the first week in one day one of the writers went from the bottom of the vote to jump several hundred positions all the way up to the top in the span of a few hours. They shut down the poll over that and switched the vote to a forum like this where people had to make individual posts and state in words what they liked. THat way if you wanted to stuff the results you at least had to go through a lot more work to make eachof your posts sound like a different person and the mods could still catch you with IP address records. END OFF TOPIC Lastly: It isn't just 'pro-nude-fairies'. There's whole categories of non sexual art that could be affected by either of these potential policies. The one banning any nudity in something appears underage, or the one banning any hints of sexuality (which can be so subjective... as the ice cream girl points out).

Well, when i read this thread, yesterday, I wondered about some of the older pictures in the gallery....mine included. once upon a yesterday, this place wasn't nearly so uptight, and, those of us who posted here didn't have to worry about our girls getting carded in the gallery. methinks that alot of really nice stuff could be removed from our galleries. geeze, we've already lost many really good members, over all this new correctness, or whatever it is. many of us, myself included, if we have remained, just aren't that thrilled about posting here, anymore. Just my lil...Pop....pop....pop on this issue. i am seriously surprised that it hasn't been locked already.

Poppi, why are you surprised that the thread hasn't been locked? From what I've seen, there's nothing going on but the airing of a lot of opinions without any flaming, personal insults, or even outrageous behavior in general. The occasional sarcastic post isn't even offensive; that's simply the way some people choose to express themselves. Frankly, I'm pretty impressed with the way everyone has dealt with this issue.

audre sums it up in #68 - we are hashing this out even as I write this, we are trying very hard to accomodate and please as many people as possible, while still maintaining some semblance of order in a membership of some 60-80,000 people. Contrary to popular belief, we are not power-mad ogres ;-) - we are human beings, we are subject to make mistakes, and we are working hard to try to correct some of those mistakes. But we also realize, and hope that y'all will realize too, that with this many members, we can't please everybody....all we can do is try to do the best we can, and hope that the majority will understand. Thanks!

Oh, lately, I come home from work, and see topics that look interesting...but, they are normally locked by the time I get home. This thread is interesting, so, I guess I was just comparing. I guess i skimmed the locked threads, and, didn't pay attention to the "nasties"....been having fun with my modelling and grrrrrr....trying to learn zbrush...kinda ducking out and running over to zbrush central after a quick look-see around the old stomping grounds. :*) Pop...Pop....Poppi!!!

OMG, the taliban has infiltrated Renderosity. Please notify the FBI!! Soon we'll have to cover Vicky's and Stephanie's face!! JV :(

our girls getting carded in the gallery What does "carded" mean here? The only meaning that I know for "to card" as a verb, is to comb unspun wool or cotton between wire brushes to get all the fibers in line before spinning it. I am British and I don't know all USA slang.

It means they're asking for an ID (card) to verify your age. Used in context, "I still get carded when buying cigarettes and I'm 34" Tilandra

JVR: Nice overreaction. And only a couple days too late. Since you obviously couldn't be bothered to read the entire thread, heres the gist: We updated the TOS. It caused an uproar. We withdrew the changes after listening to the members and are now reconsidering how to word things to prevent the posting of child pornography. That was all we were trying to do in the first place, but we got it wrong and admitted so. Kevin.

I have to give admin big points for admitting they made a mistake with the TOS kbennett. Its nice to know that you guys were listening. I have to say though that Im a little anxious about the fact you guys rewrote the TOS in the first place. And lest we forget why this was an issue to begin with, Moscas Fairy image still got yanked for no good reason. Did you look at this rendering? Did you see anything remotely sexual about that image? I sure didnt. Oh well cudos for changing your minds about the TOS and you might want to re-examine what constitutes child porn in your eyes. Peace

"child porn " We are looking into that right now.... Uh.... Er... were not looking at child porn, but a way to write the TOS to cover this issue better. Moscas Fairy image is back and we all love it. All versions of it. My fav it the "for the mods" one. Very cute!

Cool thanks for the info, sounds like the issue is over then. Once again Cudos.

June, you obviously didn't read any part of this thread. The TOS WAS NOT changed :)

honestly, it has been very good to see common sense prevail in this issue. I sincerely hope that this new era of common sense will continue, as it is off to a great start. There are ALREADY on the books legal interpretations that define in pretty explicit terms what is considered "child-porn" and what isn't. There will always be those who want to push the limits, see how far they can go to get away with something, but by far the vast majority of people, the vast majority of Renderosity members, are not of that mindset at all. In my own studied opinion on this matter as a faerie artist almost exclusively, I think that the TOS SHOULD just merely reflect the current wording of the local law, PERIOD. (That would be Nashville, TN in this case.) Paraphrased, it does not single out images that may or may not be interpretated by the highly subjective terms of what is "erotic", or "sensual", the law states that images of children engaged in sexual acts of any kind are illegal, as is ALSO the "lewd display of genitals" of underaged individuals. C'mon people! You know and I know and any body with any sense about them KNOWS what that means! NO nude faeries who look 12 years old with their legs spread open to the "camera" (virtual camera or otherwise) leering seductively at the viewer! There is a whole lot of what gets deemed "subjective" that isn't- and if it does not break the LEGAL interpretation then nobody gets in trouble. Though a few malcontents are always gonna complain, that is their right of free speech the same as it is to post an innocent nude image, no matter what the "apparent" age of the virtual subject. COPY THE LOCAL LAW WORD FOR WORD INTO THE TOS AND LET THAT BE THE END OF THE ISSUE. IF ANYONE HAS A PROBLEM WITH IT, THEY MAY TAKE IT UP WITH THE TENNESSEEE SUPREME COURT.

NO nude faeries who look 12 years old with their legs spread open to the "camera" (virtual camera or otherwise) leering seductively at the viewer! ************************************************************** Actually this goes beyond the law. SInce you're including virtual faeries. The law only covers photographic images. Or images that used real models. Legally... we could do full on porn animations with the millinium kids and the poser dog... Not that I'd want to see it or even advocate it. But it would be within the law.

Yeah yer right... let me clarify that... no nude images that would be illegal if they happened to be real people which of course they are not because if they were then I could claim them all as dependents on my income tax and thereby BUY Renderosity lock, stock, and smokin' barrel and then post whatever the hell I want. TADA! :) How'zat?