How do we reconcile all this discussion with this? http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=434257&Start=193&Sectionid=8&filter_genre_id=0&WhatsNew=Yes

I disagree with what Punkclown is saying above, but I will not reply to it any more, first of all because it has been said already, and secondly because my comments are not welcome by the admin. I have been formally warned 'in private' by Spike to basically shut up since the case is closed. Of course Spike will deny that, but I can send the relevant IM's to whoever is interested. I would continue this debate, if I felt that there is a genuine interest to change things. But now I know that there isn't. I would like to thank all those who contributed significantly to this discussion. I won't mention anybody in particular, because I may forget somebody. I will definitely stop posting here until I see some significant improvements in the direction we suggested. So I will observe quietly. I will try my best not to bite the bait and reply to any more provoking statements from the mods. Depending on the developments, I may decide, at the end, to pull down all my work, if that's the case. If somebody wants to view my work, just send me an IM. I am now putting it up now on another free site. All the best and thank you again.

Illusions, your post # 90 is spot on! It perfectly summarizes the issues in a couple of lines.

Spike I sent you a couple of IMs, in case you are interested. I am off now.

Punkclown, the same applies to you mods (and I am not talking about yourself); Spike, I don't have your instant message any more but this is what you said. Otherwise what did you want to say?

Punklown, I totally agree with you. You seem to be the only one here who is capable of addressing and understanding the issue. I agree it is difficult to spell out everything. That's why you have to exercise extra care in the wording of the messages, be extra careful with the messages you receive in reply to your communications of deletion, and possibly come up with something better in the TOS which indeed allows you to make Renderosity a sort of mid way site as Crecent is saying and most importantly allows people to understand better what is allowed and what is not. That's all I am saying (and Illusions as well, I think). But I totally disagree with you on the issue of Michelle. She was supposed to measure her words more carefully, particularly in public. The fact that my words were strong doesn't allow a mod to accuse me of stirring up a stink because I should have contacted her in private. I did it, and my message was not answered, that's all I know. Her words added insult to injury. I have already said why in my reply to Crecent above. It is very naive of you if you think I will ever make an apology for what I said on this point. And as a matter of fact I am still waiting for a reply from the management on that issue.And when I say a reply I mean an apology.

thisis for Crescent's message above. I have to comment on this message of Crescent (which is public); I hope I will be allowed, because it seems now that I should talk only in private; but since this is public, i would like to reply in public. I'll paste my comments in capitals, juts to differentiate them from teh text of Crescent, not to signify shouting. MichelleA did give reasons for the removal, the model was playing with her breasts. CORRECT, SHE DID GAVE EXPLANATIONS, BUT THESE DO NOT HAVE A CORRESPONDENT IN THE TOS. ALSO THE IMAGE OF BRANDAN IS ABOUT TOUCHING OF BREASTS. BUT MINE HAS BEEN DELETED, THIS ONE NO. OF COURSE THERE IS A DIFFERENT FEEL TO THE 2 PICS, I AGREE. BUT THIS ONLY IMPLIES THAT THE TOS THE WAY IT IS NOW IS NOT ADEQUATE. I JUST INVITED AN EXPLANATION ON THIS. If you want my blunt explanation - the picture looked like a porn site ad. We don't want this site to become another Renderotica. THAT'S YOUR PERSONAL OPINION, FINE. YOU DON'T WANT TO THIS SITE TO BECOME ANOTHER RENDEROTICA? HOW ABOUT THE MARKETPLACE? IS THAT FAMILY ORIENTED? We also don't want to become another Disney, either. We're trying to be somewhere in the middle. As Spike pointed out earlier, even if you post an image that's against TOS, you are simply IMed the reason the image was pulled. I WAS EMAILED, NOT IM'ED No action is taken unless you keep violating the TOS deliberately, such as posting kiddie porn, reposting the same yanked image over and over, etc. I WAS NOT TRYING TO BE CLEVER, I THOUGHT IN ALL GOOD FAITH THAT THE IMAGE WAS BANNED FROM THE GALLERIES, BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS ALLOWED TO DISCUSS IT HERE. I AM AWFULLY SORRY ABOUT THAT, BUT I DON'T THINK I COMMITTED A CAPITAL CRIME. I SIGNED UP 3 MONTSH AGO, I DON'T KNOW ALL THE RULES AND CERTAINLY THE RULE THAT IF SOMETHING IS REMOVED FROM THE GALLERIES IT CANNOT BE DISCUSSED HERE IS NOWHERE TO BE FOUND. SOME MORE FOOD FOR THOUGHT. Here's the general process for a disputed image: 1) Mod either sees an image they feel is over the TOS or receives a complaint about an image and tags it. (I don't know which it was for gilo25, and I don't care. The net effect is the image is brought up for a vote.) 2) Unless the image is seriously over TOS, such as kiddie porn which is immediately yanked, the image is posted for the Mods to look at and take a vote on. 3) The Mods vote, giving their reason(s) why the image should stay or go. Majority rules. (We don't always agree, but not even the Supreme Court has unanimous rulings and they're trained in legal interpretations.) 4) If the image is deemed okay (and, yes, this does happen sometimes) then it stays. If someone had complained about the image, they're informed that the image has been deemed suitable for the community. If the image is considered against TOS, then the Mod who asked for the vote IMs the poster and give the reason(s) why the image was pulled. Depending on the Mod, it might be a short summary or a longer description. The member is free to contact the Mod for a more detailed description. WHICH I DID. YOU ALL SAW THE EMAIL I SENT TO MICHELLE. If the artist disagrees, they can go to the Admins or even the site owners to argue their case. IN FACT I DID SEND A MESSAGE TO MICHELLE WHICH AS FAR AS I KNOW WAS IGNORED. BUT I WAS NOT ARGUING AGAINST ITS REMOVAL: I WAS ASTONISHED THAT TEHRE WAS NOTHING IN THE TOS TO GUIDE ME AND WANTED AN EXPLANATION AS FAR AS THE DELETION OF THAT PIC WAS CONCERNED. The replies in the gilo25 thread weren't meant as "sod off" responses to people asking legitimate questions to better stand the TOS, BUT THAT'S THE WAY THEY CAME ACROSS.LOCKING THE THREAD ALSO SIGNIFIES 'SOD OFF' TO ME. but if you enter a heated argument, you may get some strained responses. Instead of telling you to shut up, despite a very provocative thread title, THERE WAS NOTHING PROVOCATIVE IN MY TITLE. WHAT'S PROVOCATIVE ABOUT 'CENSORSHIP'? OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD? THERE IS NOTHING PROVOCATIVE HERE EITHER. JUST A FACT.we've asked you and everyone else for suggestions on how to improve the TOS. I don't think that's treating members badly. NO IT'S NOT AND I (AND EVERYBODY) APPRECIATED THAT. Consider how the thread went: 1) gilo25 posts that we're censoring his pictures because one was removed. TRUE. ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT? As he quotes MichelleA: One of your gallery items has been removed by the staff at Renderosity.com for the following reason: We received complaints on this image and after a lot of deliberation it was decided that this image is unsuitable for the gallery. It has an overt sexual feeling running thru it. In general images of breast touching haven't been allowed either, so that is another reason for it's removal. As this is supposed to be a PG-13 site something like this is probably better suited towards sites like Renderotica. I'm sorry for any problems this may cause you. The message he quotes does spell out why the image was rejected.CORRECT. BUT THE TOS SHOWS NO CORRESPEONDNCE WITH THE REASONS BROUGHT FORWARD. HENCE THE PROBLEM AND TEH REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION. WHICH WAS NEVER ANSWERED. He also tries to post the image that he had already been told was rejected from the site. IN ABSOLUTE GOOD FAITH. I THOUGHT IT CAN BE DISCUSSED, AS I SAID BEFORE. He also accuses MichelleA and the rest of us of being bigots in the first post: If you continue with this arbitrary acts of censorship I will have no choice but to leave this site. I have no problems with that, as there are plenty of other sites where one can post without suffering the rigors of such bigot censorship, but I would like to know first what the Renderosity community thinks. YES, BECAUSE I WAS GETTING ANNOYED BY THE FACT THAT MY PRIVATE REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATIONS WENT IGNORED. 2) AgentSmith pulls the image. If it's not allowed in the gallery, it's not allowed in the forums, either. GOOD TO KNOW. 3) gilo25 likens AgentSmith to the KGB and insults the Mods of Renderosity in general: One more element here for you all to judge upon: I was trying to upload the incriminated image to give everybody a chance to judge, but it was being removed as fast as light by agentsmith, whose name reminds very much of a KGB spy. Looks like this is the climate we live in, here at Renderosity. YES, AFTER HAVING WRITTEN AND BEING IGNORED, AFTER TRYING TO GET A DEBATE GOING, SEEING THE SARCASM OF AGENTSMITH FRANKLY GOT ME AS MUCH ANGRY AS MICHELLE'S ACCUSATION OF STIRRING UP A STINK. BUT I DID SAY ABOVE THAT I DID NEVER MEAN TO LIKEN YOUR ACT TO AN ACT OF MURDER. This was partially in response to AgentSmith's IM to gilo25, where he put in a smiley face in an attempt to soften his message. This was taken the wrong way by gilo25 and AgentSmith did apologize to him for that misunderstanding privately, but not only was the apology not accepted, but the comments against AgentSmith continued. I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANYTHING ELSE AGAINST HIM. IN ANY CASE YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT MY SITUATION WAS NOT THAT 'GLORIOUS', CONSIDERING HOW I HAD BEEN TREATED FOR QUITE SOME TIME, I.E. FROM TOTAL NEGLECT TO SARCASM. THAT'S WHAT I FELT, AND NOBODY CAN TAKE THAT AWAY FROM ME. EXACTLY LIKE YOU FELT INSULTED BY THE COMPARISON WITH THE POLICE (WHICH BY THE WAY SPIKE HIMSELF HAS JUST BROUGHT UP, IN ANOTHER VERY UNFORTUNATE IM IN WHICH HE WAS IN REALITY SUPPOSED TO 'TALK' TO ME, A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE MODS AND POLICE. I AM PARAPHARSING HIM: HE SAID 'WHY DID YOU POST THE IMAGE AGAIN? WOULD YOU SPEED OFF WITH YOUR CAR IF YOU HAVE JUST BEEN GIVEN A FINE FOR SPEEDING? SO WHO IS TALKING ABOUT POLICE NOW? BUT I DON'T WANT TO DWELL ON THAT COZ I AM GOING TO BE CURSED, KNOWING HOW THINGS GO. ...) I FELT INSULTED BY BEING NEGLECTED AND LAUGHED AT. 4) At this point, AgentSmith and MichelleA both pop in and again say that this is nothing against gilo25 but the image does not fit the site.FINE, BUT WHERE IS THE EXPLANATION OF THE CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE TOS? They also state that we try to be consistant, BUT YOU ARE NOT, AS THE MARKETPLACE SHOWS. OF COURSE NOBODY IS PERFECT BUT SUCH BLATANT CONTRADICTION SHOULD BE EASILY AVOIDED. but with borderline pictures, it is a case-by-case basis. (I also pop in as well to try to explain the decision as my name was indirectly dragged into it with an incorrect reference to a Poser thread.) 5) There's some general arguing as to what pictures have breast touching and which don't. Other members join in. 6) gilo25 likens AgentSmith and Renderosity to a military junta: Kevin, I am afraid you are talking like a spokesman of a military junta here: 'And your image was so deemed by the moderator team. We each looked at it and came to a decision. The image is unsuitable for this site.' Sounds like when they arrested Aung Sang Sukyi for her own good... mmhhh.. And, as it is often the case for the statements of military juntas, your words are not supported by facts. TRUE, I ALREADY SAID WHY I SAID THIS. 7) At this point, the Mods start getting annoyed, POOR THINGS. I HAD BEEN ANNOYED FOR A COUPLE OF DAYS ALREADY. AND CORRECTLY SO. including myself, being accused of having no regard for any members of Renderosity and of persecuting gilo25. THAT'S WHAT IT SEEMED, I AM AFRAID. Until that point, all the Mod responses have been polite but firm. After the last accusation, the responses get blunt. Even though we've been accused of being on par with the Burmese militia, at no time do we start insulting gilo25 back. REALLY? WHAT ABOUT THE STIRRING UP STINK? WAS THAT NOT A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT OF GETTING OFFENSIVE? 8) MichelleA actually did give reasons that the picture was deleted. YES WE KNOW THAT. gilo25 posted it in the initial post of the thread. gilo25 didn't like the reason but gilo25 did not respond back to MichelleA's message for further clarification. YES I DID. I PASTED THE MESSAGE ABOVE. (Or if he did reply, she never received it. VERY UNFORTUNATE, BUT WHAT CAN I DO ABOUT IT? IN ANY CASE YOU CAN'T PROVE SHE DIDN'T GET IT AS I CAN'T PROVE I SENT IT. WE ARE EVEN. MY WORD AGAINST YOURS. She asked the other Mods if they'd been contacted by gilo25 because she never had, THE MESSAGE IS THERE FOR YOU TO READ. that's how I know she hadn't been contacted. SHE THAD. AND THISLAST STATEMENT OF YOURS IS ALL TO BE PROVEN. SINCE YOU CAN'T, THE FACT REMAINS THAT I FELT INSULTED BY THE WORDS OF MICHELLE. YOU CAN'T DENY THAT. have no reason to believe she'd lie on this.)I DO, BUT THAT'S ANOTHER STORY. AGAIN YOUR WORD AGAISNT MINE. 9) With all the insults that gilo25 tossed at us, THE ONLY AND EXCLUSIVE THING WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN INAPPROPRIATE (BUT I DON'T SEE IT AS A BIG DEAL) IS THE COMPARISON WITH THE JUNTA, WHICH WE DEALT WITH ALREDAY. ALL THE REST IS JUST PURE FACTS, NO INSULTS AT ALL. I personally feel that "stiring things up" isn't that far from the truth. IT IS. AND HERE YOU JOIN HER IN INSULTING ME AGAIN. I DID SEND A MESSAGE AND YOU (AS MOD) HAVE TO WATCH YOUR WORDS AS MUCH (IF NOT MORE) AS WE HAVE TO WATCH OURS. He starts off swinging, threatening to pack up and leave and calling us bigot GS WORSE. censors. ARE YOU AFRAIA IF I LEAVE? WHAT KIND OF THREAT IS THAT STATEMENT OF MINE? If he'd simply posted something like, "Could you please clarify the TOS?" or "Could you please explain why my image was removed?" I DID BUT YOU NEVER REPLIED TO IT, AS I AM SAYING FOR THE 15TH TIME. and given us time to answer, then it would have been something entirely different. YES, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT. SO ARE YOU KNOW SAYING THAT YOU DID RECEIVE IT BUT YOU DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO REPLY? I hope this better clarifies NO IT DOESN'T. IT MAKES THINK WORSE

I haven't got any email yet. let me check. But it's early morning here, and I had some good time last night with my models tuning radios.. Can I have breakfast first?

;) Punkclown, you are right, looks like she is tuning a radio.. but that's the problem, where do you draw the line?.. anyway, we talked about that, I don't want to 'stir any more stink'. What I want to say is that I did appreciate your effort. As a matter of fact I was referring to your sentence 'gilo25 Some aspects of your email suggestions do have merit. I truly hope that both Renderosity and yourself can learn from these exchanges" when I said that I was about to calm thing down, as I saw an effort from the mods (I was referring to you) to calm things down. It seems that you don't read either, have a look above! But the problem is that then Michelle came up with that very unfortunate comment saying that it was my intention to stir up a stink because had I bothered to contact you in private I would have received an explanation. How many times do I have to say that I did bother to contact you, I even pasted my email above. But I never got a reply. Maybe you guys did not receive it, but this doesn't authorize you to depict me as a trouble maker. it is unprofessional. The fact that I was really astonished by your censorship and compared you to a military junta doesn't allow you to insult me back, as I did somehow recognize somewhere above that my comparison was not on. But you never admitted that Michell'es words were inappropriate as well. And they were indeed, together with the locking of thread of Spike and other oobservations from the mod.And I repeat it here that she lied, as far as I know, because nobody officially told me that she never received my email. And this leads me to my last point. Guys, it's better if one of you makes the talks because by intervening at random, you don't make yourself a favour: you are just destroying each other's work. get your acts together and we are going to solve this, coz neither illusions, xperimental man or myself are here to stir up stinks. have you ever thought it is maybe because we like this site????? Of course, if you continue like this, obviously we do lose our patience. At least I do.

Yes starshuffler I have been given 4 different explanations, and a lot of stories that did not satisfy me. That's the problem: I want one person to talk to me as representative of Renderosity. Your chipping in after reading in silence doesn't help. I have put down some requests and I would like an answer. Nobody has formally addressed the fact that I did raise this in private 'before stirring up a stink'. Therefore I reiterate here all I said before, including the unprofessional ways of the mods, at times. Still waiting.. And I would also like somebody to give an explanation on how you reconcile the market place with your TOS. That's a public issue, not a private one, Spike. Brendan, I love your musing.. ;)

Sorry, I meant 'I found'..

I totally agree with the suggestions of illusions above in post 37. That would solve the problem or at least improve significantly the situation. As far as the observation 'You must live in la-la land. I've seen a fair few similar threads but this these take the biscuit. Dude, try this. Take up a few memberships with some of the major art sites. Try posting some risque stuff and when it's rejected, which it will be, carry on about it like you are doing here. In 12 hours time, when every one of these sites has banned you without bothering to canvas your opinion or spend hours politely justifying their decisions, I reckon you'll have a sunny new appreciation for the way things work around here.', I would like to say that I do have a few memberships with some other sites and, first of all, there is no 'risque' stuff there, everything goes (and they are not porn sites, as a matter of fact they have much less vulgar stuff than Renderotica); and if there are limits, those are spelt out clearly, in a way which resembles very much the suggestions put forward by illusions. So if you are banned, there are reasons. Therefore I am afraid I won't have any 'sunny apprecaiation for the way things work here', on the contrary, as this is the only site IO found where mods tell you to shut up, lock threads, insult members by accusing them to stir up stinks, etc etc. In this respect, I am still waiting to be contacted on the issues I raised in my post above.

If somebody was insulted that was me (accused of trying to unlawfully re-upload the image, stirring up stinks) and the otehrs who were told to basically mind their own businesses. Plus the action of locking the previous thread. Let's not forget the title of the thread we are writing on now, which is more than deserved. So whatever I said doesn't seem so far fetched to me and certainly was not as insulting as what myself, illusions and the others got from the mods. I am not holding my breath (;)), I can assure you I am breathing very nicely throughout this thing. But I insist on a apology for a very hasty and undeserved treatment.

I am pushing my luck? Who is threatening who here? Why do you assume you are authorized to assume a tne like this? I did not break any rules by trying to re-post the image in the Forum, I was in absolute good faith trying to discuss something openly. Or is this a new interpretation of the TOS?

Your message doesn't explain anything. The issue is: I am a disgruntled customer, end user, whatever you want to call me (yes we are customers, we are not being made a favour by being allowed to post here, it is the other way around). The initial removal message which informed me why the image was pulled did say why it was pulled but the problem is that a correspondnce in the TOS is nowhere to be found. The messaqge is inadequate because it doesn't say 'the image was pulled based on the TOS which says...'; as a matter of fact teh message can't possibly say that because there is no correlation between the current TOS and the reasons indicated in the message for the image to be pulled. Your interpretation of the TOS is just an interpretation, because if you read the TOS, it does not contain adequate elements that would tell the 'poster' that the image he/she is about to post is unsuitable. The TOS talks about sexual acts etc, but not about touching of breasts. Moreover, there are a lot of inconsistency because the site is full of sexual images which has no more right than the one at issue to reamain, based on the TOS. Let's not forget also about the Chair of Juda which you will agree is not a feature odf a family oriented site. We are therefore asking for a revision of the TOS, and if you were receptive enough you would have already agreed to it. That's all. Here is the message I sent in reply to teh message I was sent when the image was pulled out: 20/06/03 10:08 AM To: michellea@renderosity.com cc: Subject: Re: Your image 'Sultry' was removed from our galleries. Dear Michelle, I am truly astonsihed by this decision. As you know my nudes are not sexually aggressive, as all the comments testify. If someone saw it and found it 'unsuitable', it means that he/she did not have the access to nudity turned off. So it means that he/she is not disturbed by nudity. If he/she actually forwarded a complaint for an image like this, which has no explicit sexual content (the nipple is NOT being touched, there is just an allusive gesture), I think this person has a problem with his/her own percption of what is sexually disturbing. I don't think this should influence the decision of Renderosity, which in any case doesn't cause any particular problem to me, as I will simply switch to other sites. But it will cause a problem to Renderosity itself as for the pruderie of one viewer, hundreds of viewers will be disappointed not to see a certain type of images any more, which certainly gathered the highest number of views per day. But it seems that Rendersosity has made its choice. I would still like to know where it says that the image at issue is not suitable, while all the rest of images is. All the best G' I never got a reply to this. You are now saying you didn't get it. Fine, but this doesn't allow you to insinuate that it was my intention to stir up a stink. I therefore still insist on an apology from Renderosity as requested in points 1 to 4 in post 9 above. Also, since the situation is getting more serious, I would like to invite Renderosity to choose one person who will be the official represenatative of the site. I will not reply to messages of the umpteen mod who is chipping in without me knowing whether he is representing the site or him/herself.