yet another of my images deleted from the gallery. No explanation other than "We don't think that this image is appropriate for our Art gallery." the different sets of rules depending on who you are at this site are very difficult to work through.

I think I missed this one, what was it Posette?

No it was Vicky

You didn't miss much. It had the "F" word in the title.

and where does it say in the guidelines that the word "Fuck" can not be used? However if that was the problem then an email asking me to change the title would have been a good start. These are the image upload guidelines "Acceptable Image Guidelines 1. No depictions of physical arousal or sexual acts. 2. No genital contact with ANY object, other than sitting or clothing. 3. No rape or torture of any living or dead creature." The image did not contravene any of these. FYI The word Fuck appears 167 times in these forums

FYFI the word "fuck" appears 144 times in the galleries

Read a little further, Tisa: "Additionally, any post or image can be removed at the discretion of staff if it is deemed unsuitable for this community." Basically, within the terms of the TOS, any mod can delete any image whenever they feel like it.

Perhaps they busted you for "provacative context" :)

Whoop! Whoop! Troll alert. Troll alert.

c1rcle, it was Vicky with a penis pasted between her legs.

And it was no worse than many of the thousands of pussy shots that are allowed to stay! In fact, this one was rather well done, and there wasn't anything pornographic. So she had a dick, ho hum, big fat hairy deal! If they can SELL Herma here who has one too... why can't a render be allowed??? And the title... nothing special there, either. So if you ask me, put the picture back in!!!!! Vicky wasn't even playing with it...

another one Chuck? there seems to be a lot of them about lately ;) if the nudity flag was on only "grownups" would have seen it anyway, but did s'he have an erection? that might explain why the pic is gone.

No erection, no nothing. Just hanging.

maybe it's a size thing then, was it the sort you have to tuck into your sock to stop it rubbing on the ground when you walk? or was it just a normal sized one?

It had an erection...I remember the pic.

The one I saw didn't have an erection.

Yes, but was it truly art? (chuckle) /P

Saw the pic, thought it was well done. I don't know whether it was a violation of the TOS or not, BUT I think, between the name, the picture itself, and the Age of the Artist... Didn't you mention that you were 16? Think those 3 added togther would have done it.

You might be confusing Tisa with Posette. (not sure, tho)

it's possible,, very possible,, I just ate some of my own cooking,,, oops, just went and checked. I apoligize, you are right, not one and the same.

If I would hazard a guess, it's possible that because of the name of the author, the title of the pic, it may have crossed over the TOS by making a statement about R'City or the members here. I wasn't sure when I saw it just exactly what the intent of the piece was but that was one thing that crossed my mind. And speaking of minds, I'm not a mind reader, so I don't really know why it was removed.

"Yes, but was it truly art?" Because, let's face it, that is what matters

Art is in the eye of the beholder. Lots of Doc Legume's art has been very controversial. When I look at his, I don't see "hidden" "possible" "comments" about members or R'City. Usually, his viewpoint on lots of things in the world he wants to address. I didn't get the same feeling when I viewed the subject piece from Tisa. But, that's just me. Who knows why the PTB removed it. In actuality, everything is art, one way or another. Like feces in the middle of a room. Or a light that goes off and on in an empty room. Or floating sheets of colored plastic encircling a small island.

I think the mods owe Tisa more explanation than just "it's inappropriate." If she doesn't know WHY it's "inappropriate," obviously, it's going to be increase her chances of posting an equally "inappropriate" image next time. It annoys me, too, that I'm unable to view the image and make a judgment for myself. Thank you, Big Mother.

"Or floating sheets of colored plastic encircling a small island." One of my ex-girlfriends actually worked on this project. For what that's worth.

"Yes, but was it truly art?" Perhaps if the penis was sporting a spiffy tatoo, then..maybe then, there would have been considerable artistic merit. But since I don't believe in censorship, I think even an undecorated member should be welcome in the club.

I tend to agree with you, Mosca. For that matter, we don't really know what was said to Tisa. We only have what she SAID was said to her. Not calling her a liar, but people sometimes tend to bend things to their point of view. Assuming I am anywhere near on target (apologizing to admins), I think it was a judgment call that makes it difficult to put into words. I just think it was an "angry" piece and I wonder if it was directed at the people who have disagreed with her. Maybe the admins felt the same way. But as I keep saying...I'm not their mouthpiece. Otherwise, if it was an easy decision, why is it being debated as much as it has?

Good points, Chuck--but I don't think there's anything in the TOS that says you can't be angry. Maybe a mod could step in and give us the lowdown?

Mosca, Hehe...certainly didn't mean to impune an ex-girlfriends...grin. Everone has opinions on what is art. Some I absolutely can't believe. The island thing was cute. Lots of work, I believe, for little gain. But, like all art...some like it some don't. Even the piece of crap in the floor made a statement. But it seems a shame to chose it as a winner over some well-painted oil painting.

Well, Mosca, that's the line I THINK I understand. One can say "fuck" here as freely as they feel the need for. Except when one says, "Fuck you!" to another member. That's anger and disrespect directed toward another member. In other words, not allowed. Now, did her piece approach that point? I don't know. The title, if memory serves correctly, was, "Fuck the Pain Away". Leaves it up to the admin to determine the intent of that title. Again, I say, I could be way off base. Perhaps it was removed because of something else. If anyone is owed an explanation, I suppose it is Tisa. Not necessarily us unless it could serve to quell the thread are stand as an example so people would understand in the future. I dunno...grin.

Okay, so if I'm putting it together right, the image was Vicki with a penis, and the title was "fuck the pain away"? I don't think you can say it's disrespectful of another member unless it's pretty clear who that member is. Myabe there was something in the caption that was insulting to a specific memeber, I don't know. If not, yanking it (no pun intended) seems like kind of an arbitrary decision. "...so people would understand in the future." That seems like a reasonable thing to hope for, no?

LOL (nice pun...intended or not!) Again, (sounding like a broken record) I could be off base. However, when I saw it...I tried to understand the "message". I remembered how angry she had become at members and the anger directed toward her. You MUST have seen at least one of her infamous threads. And I thought, here is someone who is pissed off. And I wondered if it was a subtle insult toward all those members who had angered her. To be completely honest and frank, I looked at it as objectively as I could. I also thought maybe the piece was trying to say, "I'm a man trapped in a female body and I hate it. Enter the idea (by the subject) of getting a "penis implant" and fucking the pain (I just described) away." But then I remembered Tisa and her threads. She has never posted anything else in her gallery that hinted of "deep meanings". So, I made my judgement. Perhaps, and I emphasize "perhaps" the admins felt something similar. I admit I'd like to know. But, I also understand I have no right to demand it. Although this is touted to be a community of artists...I always try to remember that we are "meeting in R'City's house."

It was a good render. A woman with a penis. A limp one at that, her fists clenched by her side. There was no mention of another member, no outward anger, no insult. Just that. A render with kick-ass lights, beautifully done on a white background. Heaven knows I am not in Tisa's fanclub, but this is some much bs going on again...

Ok, but let's not give the mods carte blanche to delete any image that's confusing, disturbing or obscure--otherwise I'd have to take down my whole gallery.

hmatienzo: Yep, better than I could have done...though the penis looked a bit "pasted on". But I agree about the lighting and such. Mosca: As I said earlier, I tend to agree with you. I don't want to become the brunt of people's disagreement with the removal by simply explaining what I thoght the reasons might be. As memory serves, Mosca, didn't you do a hilarious series with some animal months back? I laughed my ass off. Hope my memory is OK, because, I think it's the reason I remember your name so well now...hehe.

My daughter, cindy (aka Posette) has come up with 2 possibilities for why it was deleted: 1. She received an IM from tisa telling her that some people here mistakenly thought she and Tisa are the same person, so it may have had something to do with that; or, 2. A Forum message that was subsequeltly deleted took issue with Cindy's transexual image saying that pictures of women with penises are offensive to transexuals, so it could be that the same person also complained to renderosity and such pictures are no longer allowed.

No argument with you Chuck--just trying to understand what the deal is. I did a couple of pics involving a yak, yes. Is that what you mean? A re-do of one of them's up in my gallery now, called "Vanitas 1".

I know better than to get involved in threads like this, but... Chuck, I have to disagree with the statement, "She has never posted anything else in her gallery that hinted of "deep meanings"." The hairy armpit thing strikes me as potentially having "deep meanings." Tisa appears to enjoy challenging the status quo - the norms of the culture around her (I believe she's from here in the U.S.) - including Renderosity. Whether I agree with her or like the way she does it, it seems to me that there is usually something she's trying to say.

Well, if the admins decided to delete anything that was offensive to someone (or a group of someones), we'd have hardly any gallery at all. Small-breasted women would feel insulted by large-breasted images...thin women (remembering these are CGI) could upset heavier women. Ugly men like me could become upset by all the handsome Mikes. The story could be carried a long way. So, where would the line be drawn if that was the reason?

Yes! The Yak Pics! (that even sounds funny..."Yak Pics"). Made me laugh my ass off.

"pictures of women with penises are offensive to transexuals" No they're not. That's silly. No more than pictures of women with vaginas are offensive to women, anyway, or pictures of men with penises are offensive to men (the current nomencalture is "transgendered persons," by the way, and there are about a dozen different configurations). My guess is that pictures of women with penises are disturbing to some men with penises who might be expecting a picture of a woman with a vagina, instead.

Bobasaur--so the mods are protecting us from "deep meanings"? God, I hope that's not it.

Well, I could dredge up parts of an old thread where more than one person hinted that Tisa was an alternate sign-on that one of the "regulars" used to stir up debates with...in other words, yanking peoples' chains. Not sure why hairy armpits instills the thought of "deep meanings"...but each to his own...LOL. I lived in Europe for 7 years...I guess I just got used to them...hehe. (legs, too)

No question that she's grinding her own peculiar axe, and seems to have rubbed a number of people the wrong way. I just kind of hate to see somebody get silenced just because they're unpopular and/or a pain in the ass. Surely we're all secure enough to allow dissent. What? We're not? Oh.

Well, I am. I take things with a grain of salt, usually. Regardless of the question (posed by a few) of her being a real person or not...she stirs up debate. Although I didn't enter her last marathon thread, concerning the use of the gallery as an advertising stage, I tended to agree with her a bit. But, I don't cruise the Poser gallery much. Too depressing for me 'cause I suck compared to what I see.

Deep meaning? Should we put it down to penis envy then... to scrotum covetousness ? What's deep meaning in this Culture, now days? Maybe it's a reaction to the report that was put out this week in the US that lamented the situation of women in the US. Got me angry as hell and I'm a Canadian male... Now where's my viagra? Or as I call it: "my wee bit o' meaning in a bottle". That'll put hair on your chest.

Well, hopefully my remark about "deep meaning" won't be taken differently than I meant it. Personally speaking, I think (thinking in broad terms) art comes in two forms (and I'm sure, more): Pleasing to the eye. Boris' art doesn't have deep meaning. But it's always colorful and imaginative and beautiful. Meaning? Not much. Other than, perhaps, his interpretation of a myth or something. Meaningful (or "deep"). Something that causes someone to think. I would point you to a thread in the photography gallery on photojournalism. Or (God forbid) to my gallery for "Leftover Death" or "Tween Tricks". Where I tried to convey a meaning. When I mentioned Tisa's pieces in her gallery, I didn't see "deep meaning" in the way I interpret it. Doesn't mean it isn't art. Just that it seems to me that what she posts doesn't try to convey any particular meaning. Except for the one we are discussing.

The hairy armpits pictures could(?) be an artist pointing at contemporary American standards for beauty and saying, "Hey, these standards are wrong. They're based on artificial appearances created by Hollywood. They're not based on the characteristics of real, natural women!" I didn't see this transgender picture but maybe the deeper meaning was that women are starting to use sex as a weapon for pure gratification, similar to the way males often do. I know Madonna's video "What it feels like to be a girl" poked at the different expectations our society places on males/females. I don't know if this is what Tisa means or not. I'm just capable of imagining potential deeper meanings. I, too, hope the mods aren't protecting us from deeper meanings. I was rather unhappy when they protected us from Moscas' wonderful piece involving an ancient mythical creature that happened to have some physical appearance characteristics similar to those of a prepubescent human female. I'm imagining possible deeper meanings in an effort to be fair-minded. I acknowledge that it's completely hypothetical. I don't know Tisa well enough to say what she's thinking. I do know there are some artists that stretch things pretty far.

I just read my last post and had to chuckle. All my extremely liberal friends would be so proud of me for not making comments about "femi-nazis."

Well, I do agree with you...now that you showed a more capable ability of looking at the armpits than I did...grin. You make a good point. Guess I'm not "deep enough". When I looked at it, all I saw was something of "pin-up" quality. Nicely done, mind you, but just pin-up sort of stuff. I also don't pretend to know her intent. One of the reasons I hate second-guessing people. Also, I tried to look deeper into the "Fuck" piece...and even came up with my own alternate opinion. But, one can't help but get a feeling. Like I've tried to say to my wife when looking to purchase art poster (OK, so we're cheap...LOL): If the picture doesn't "grab" you right away, it doesn't need to be considered. If one has to deliberate on how much we like it...it's probably better to let it be. So, that's my way of saying "first impressions". And the first impression I got from her piece was as I described above. I tried to override it, but was not completely successful.