I don't believe gamma will fix the issue, because it changes the entire image.  Thanks for the kind words, Geep.

But without 5 notifications, how would you know that they decided to play hokey-pokey with Alice again?  (She's in the marketplace, she's out, she's in, she's out, we'll sell her, we won't she's too precious, we changed our mind we will for a bit then not again ever, ok just one more time, sorry that was it, ok just one more time again....etc. the loop keeps going forever).  I think they should get the flip-flopper of the year award! :)~

Good to know, Stacey.

The bizarre From address returns in this weeks "WTD Wednesday" e-mail, only this time it's:

Renderosity Store Staff [1651cf0d2f737d7adeab84d339dbabd3@hedwig.bondware.com]

Harry Potter fans are we?

I know for certain it's not against the rules but does this really have to be on the front page with no control over whether it comes up or not?

One look at my gallery and my favorite artists will tell any of you that I've got absolutely no problems with giant in your face boobs (I even purchased the above advertised outfit!)...however, I (and I'm sure others) like to hit up the site at work to get to places like the forums, check my sitemail, or other view news posts.  The gallery is easy to avoid, and there's even controls to filter (somewhat) what pops up into view, and the forums have content warnings for threads that make them easy to circumnavigate.  But come on, let's be classy here...does there really have to be a gigantic pastied boob on the front page?  And being that it's in the advertisements, there's nothing that can be done about it popping up at inopportune times.  In fact I'm perfectly happy to see the giant boob...when I'm at home!

I've noticed that the marketplace advertisements have been allowed to get racier and racier as time has gone on since the implementation of the no-nudity policy in marketplace thumbs nearly, what, 2 years ago now?  Am I just going to have to cut Renderosity out of my daytime browsing or can we get some options here as to what type of marketplace advertisements we want to be subjected to and when?  Am I crazy to pine for something like this?

Anything on the "From" address being so bizarre occasionally?

There is no spellchecker in the FCK editors on this site.  If you're using Firefox, you've probably got a spellchecker plugin, or in IE7 something like the IE7Pro plugin features a spellchecker.

The thing about these FCK editors is they hijack the right-click functionality, so you can't get at the spellcheck options that should show up.  Just Cut, Copy, Paste.

If you haven't received any message about it being pulled, then it probably just got eaten by the gallery software.  It happens from time to time.  Unfortunately there's nothing you can do but wait until the next day to post again (which it is now!).

If it was "deleted" (rarely is anything actually deleted, only pulled out of the galleries), it sometimes takes a bit for the admin who did so to get a message out to you stating why.

Alternately, are you able to post another image?  If so, and you don't have Gallery Plus, that means that your image didn't take.  If you are certain that your image was not deleted, then you could just post it again.  If it says you are already at your limit for the day, that means the image did take and most likely was either eaten by the system (it happens sometimes) or pulled by an admin.

Quote - > Quote - I mean, seriously - pasties, panties, grabbing, hands/no hands and all that. Covered is covered, period. I said that before and I'll say it again.

I won't disagree with you there :)

To me nudity is seeing the bare buttocks, genitals, pubic region or female breasts...in all their glory sans clothing.

If you can't see any of those things because a body part or prop covers it, then to me that isn't "nude".

Oh I agree.  But they can't do that because that would be too logical.

As for the latest thumbnail example, I won't report it b/c it doesn't bother me.  I saw what looks like a contradiction to what I understand the policy to be.  I'm not looking to punish people who may have slipped through the cracks  (hence the reason for me re-hosting and renaming the thumbnails).  If I see something in the gallery (especially after a week) I figure it's something that was deemed OK, and that I may be misunderstanding the restriction.

D'oh I missed it :(

How about this thumbnail in the galleries right now (and has been for over a week)?  The genital nudity is completely on screen, only obscured by a leg, and there's no indication of wearing clothing.

Karen is correct.  IE6 does not have a built in RSS feed reader.  IE7 does however (as does Firefox 2).  Or you can go with a dedicated feed reader like Karen recommended.

Many choices!

Quote - > Quote - Of course, one might wonder what the difference is. Covered is covered, after all.

An interesting question would be "If the figure is wearing pasties, how much of them must not be covered by the hands for a thumbnail to be allowed ?"

You, sir, have won this thread.

I'm surprised someone popped this thread back up...

Quote - As stated previously:
Pasties are considered clothing.
Hands aren't.

I think Pearce's point is that the pasties, which expose far more than a hand, would have to be visible in order to make a thumbnail acceptable (should it actually be a picture of a figure wearing pasties w/ a hand over the top).  That kind of runs counter to the goals of the thumbnail rule of making the gallery thumbnails "tasteful" and nudity (or near nudity) less "in your face".

It's just an observation...I'm not here to argue against or for the rule.