By teh way, I am also amazed that, after all this, you came up with post 22 which just doesn't consider at all what has been said so far about the total inadequacy of your messages informing that an item has been pulled and you even dare insisting that, for you, the TOS is pretty clear and that you even have put a lot of effort in it!!!!!! You don't think members want longer TOS???? But, I am asking you, have you been reading and listening to all what has been said so far, i.e. that we DO need TOS which means something? We are all reday to read a few lines more, it's not a big problem, as long as thiose lines help understanding better what is allowed and what is not. I am also amazed (positively) by the patience of X-perimentalman who guided you through the issue once more. He really deserves a special mention, I am not being sarcastic.

Spike, I don't understand why you are waiting for an email from me. Did you read post #9? As I just said, I already sent an email to michellea@renderosity.com on 20/6/03, replying to her email telling me that the image had been pulled. I never got a reply. Therefore I started the thread that you all know. Now I am waiting for the management to contact me, addressing my requests laid out in my post 9 above.

It was my intention to open talks when I replied to Michelle's removal message externating my astonishment. But I didn't get anything in reply. You will maybe say you didn't get it? maybe.. I had the same intention when I then started the tread here and in good faith I wanted to show the image for peple to be able to discuss. I was accused of stirring up a stink for that. So now all of a sudden you want me to bring up the matter?? I think it has been brough up already, quite thoroughly! This is not a matter between me and Renderosity any more. This is something which concerns the community. At this stage what I want is the following: 1. An admission and an apology from Renderosity's management for having sent me an inadequate communication when the image was removed. 2. An apology (or a reasonable explanation) for having ignored my message sent in reply to Michelle's first message. 3. An apology for the fact that Michelle (I am paraphrasing now, because I don't feel like going through all the exchanges again) said clearly that she did not feel necessary to go in more detail in this issue and explain further. 4. An apology for having deliberately depicted me as a trouble maker who wants to go public to create havoc, while this was caused only by the fact that my 'private' message was not answered. I am not questioning the removal of the picture, I am questioning the process followed by the mods, the unclear rules, and the total lack of communication skills displayed by the mods throughout this unfortunate episode. I don't have anything more to say in private. Everything that needed to be said has ben said. You have more than enough elements to start a review of your censorship system, I don't need to add anything and I do believe this has been helpful because whatever you say I am sure that deep down you recognize that the system is in desperate need of a revamping. I do think the Management owes me an apology for those 4 issues I just mentioned. It is up to you whether you want to do it in public or in private. I personally don't mind either way as far as the other points, but for point 4, since Michelle publicly accused me of 'stirring up a stink', I would like it to be publicly retreated. And I would suggest that the Management of Renderosity spend a few thousand dollars in a communication skills training for its mods. They desperately need it! I am a personnel management specialist in my 'real' life and I can tell you that any company who has communicators this bad in key areas of public relations is bound to run into troubles sooner or later.

This behaviour of the modeartors is really insulting. I was prepared to put this thing to rest, as some mods had given me the impression that they acknowledged the validity of the points I made, particularly those related to the fact that you could use better PR skills and justify better when you remove a picture from the gallery. However the way Michelle A replied to the very valid points of illusions (and the way Spike locked the tread) shows that you haven't understood anything and Michelle is also lying through her teeth. In fact as soon as I got that first email informing about the removal which DID NOT adequately explain the reasons why it was removed (I pasted it in my initial Forum message), I DID SEND AN EMAIL TO RENDEROSITY (by just replying to Michelle's message) in which I was stating my astonishment and although I was not asking specific questions, it was a CLEAR CRY FOR HELP: I WAS ASKING FOR AN EXPLANATION!!! BUT NOBODY BOTHERED TO REPLY AND THAT'S A WHY I POSTED HERE. I still have that message. I didn't want to make a stink about it, I just wanted to know better. Your attitude is insulting, Michelle and you should know it! the only reason why I wanted to post it here was because I thought this is a free place where things can be discussed. But it isn't. There was no reason to go publicly? WHY DID YOU NOT REPLY TO ME THEN??? because you were hoping that people would just shut up because you sent them a hasty email telling them not to be naughty next time? it is a shame that you still persevere in your attitude after what other people have said. You are the ones who made a stink out of it, because you didn't give explanations in the first email you sent me, you prevented me from discussing the pic here, you locked the tread, and you don't want to listen. You have the capacity of screwing up things that work with your attitude. Did you not realize that I was trying to calm down things? And you have the guts of accusing me of stirring up things? After you lie by saying that I didn't say anything after I got the message from you and went publicly right away? Shame on you! Now you can lock me, kill me, burn me..

ok, so let me make some more eyes roll and just paste here what the options are when you are trying to enforce censorship (I personally don't think censorship should be enforced at all, but I certainly accept that this is the prerogative of the management of the site). However if you want to enforce any form of censorship here or anywhere else you must come to terms with one of the following scenarios: 1. You set up rules as detailed as possible and you are willing to work on their fine tuning when it is obvious that they don't address adequately all the situations. 2. If you don't want to work on rules for any reasons (because you don't feel like it or you think it's too difficult or whatever) you need to work on your PR skills. So, when you are faced with a grey situation like this you can tackle it by achieving what you want (i.e. enforcement of censorship) and minimize the risk of upsetting people. To help you, here is a draft message that you could use in the future. 'Dear ... we have noticed you have posted this and this image in such and such gallery. Although we realize that our rules do not cover this specific situation, we have discussed your posting and have come to the conclusion that it may be unsuitable for this community. Rest assured that we will work as soon as possible on the refinement of our rules in order to be able to avoid situations like this OR (if you don't want to work on the rules) We do feel it is very difficult to come up with rules wich are specific and consistent enough, but nonetheless our TOS compels us to enforce some sort of censhorship and we do feel that this posting of yours may be seen as unsuitable in this context. Much to our regret, we have therefore decide to remove it. We are aware however that since it is very difficult to enforce censorship in this context you will find a considerable amount of inconsistencies, in terms of the images posted. We would like to apologize for this from now, and hope you will understand that our task of having to apply generic rules consistently is extremely hard. Rest assured that we do appreciate your contributions, which are valuable for our site, and we would welcome to discuss with you any clarification you may require. Looking forward to your next contribution...' With a text like this you are likely to get rid of 95% of the problems. 3. If you don't want to work on specific rules and you don't want to work on your communication skills, then you need to let the community judge if a posting is suitable or not, as I said before. In this way, it is the community who decides, and you are totally discharged from any responsibility. 4. If you don't want to have specific rules, you don't want to refine your PR skills, you don't want to let the community judge, then you have to be prepared to have more often than not somebody getting upset at this rather arrogant attitude and addressing you wih less than flattering comments.

Well it seems that Punkclown is losing his temper. Okay, since I feel exactly like you do, i.e. that I am repeating and repeating and you don't want to listen I am going to give it one last try. If you want to enforce any form of censorship here or anywhere else you must come to terms with one of the following scenarios: 1. You set up rules as detailed as possible and you are willing to work on their fine tuning when it is obvious that they don't address adequately all the situations. 2. If you don't want to work on rules for any reasons (because you don't feel like it or you think it's too difficult or whatever) you need to work on your PR skills. So, when you are faced with a grey situation like this you can tackle it by achieving what you want (i.e. enforcement of censorship) and minimize the risk of upsetting people. To help you, here is a draft message that you could use in the future. 'Dear ... we have noticed you have posted this and this image in such and such gallery. Although we realize that our rules do not cover this specific situation, we have discussed your posting and have come to the conclusion that it may be unsuitable for this community. Rest assured that we will work as soon as possible on the refinement of our rules in order to be able to avoid situations like this OR (if you don't want to work on the rules) We do feel it is very difficult to come up with rules wich are specific and consistent enough, but nonetheless our TOS compels us to enforce some sort of censhorship and we do feel that this posting of yours may be seen as unsuitable in this context. Much to our regret, we have therefore decide to remove it. We are aware however that since it is very difficult to enforce censorship in this context you will find a considerable amount of inconsistencies, in terms of the images posted. We would like to apologize for this from now, and hope you will understand that our task of having to apply generic rules consistently is extremely hard. Rest assured that we do appreciate your contributions, which are valuable for our site, and we would welcome to discuss with you any clarification you may require. Looking forward to your next contribution...' With a text like this you are likely to get rid of 95% of the problems. 3. If you don't want to work on specific rules and you don't want to work on your communication skills, then you need to let the community judge if a posting is suitable or not, as I said before. In this way, it is the community who decides, and you are totally discharged from any responsibility. 4. If you don't want to have specific rules, you don't want to refine your PR skills, you don't want to let the community judge, then you have to be prepared to have more often than not somebody getting upset at this rather arrogant attitude and addressing you wih less than flattering comments.

Yes you are repeating it again and again , but you don't address what I am saying. You just repeat that you decided it is unfit. But you are not capable of saying why and based on what rule. And the profit capability has to do with it, a lot. I agree that it will be unlikely that everybody stops posts here. However you will agree that this site makes profit because there are artists posting here. The site would not sell anything if people were not posting here. There are dozen of sites where one can post. And not all charge for it: believe me, you have a lot of competition, while artists have a wide variety of options in terms of where to post for free. Theoretically, there should be an interest from the management in keeping the community of artists happy, in order to encourage more and more people to post. The larger the better. I think artists are making a favour to the site in posting here, rather than viceversa. If artists stop posting the site dies. Oh yes, it's unlikely, but it does happen every day. My images are among the most viewed in the photography section (maybe because after all people like to be titillated? maybe). Still, nothing will happen if I stop posting, I know it very well. But since this is a very disputable, border line situation, since there is nothing offensive in my image, since there are a lot of inconsitencies in your way of applying rules (why the Chair of Juda yes - I would really like someone to try and justify it as opposed to my pic - all my other photos yes, hundreds of other sexually oriented photos/images yes, and this photo no?) why not take care of this idiot who after all has chosen Renderosity among at least a dozen possibilities to post his well viewed images by writing a more decent message instead of that dry and autocratic 'it has been decided', 'we deem it not suitable', 'pls bear it in mind when you post again..' What do I bear in mind? That you are inconsistent? What rule am I supposed to bear in mind? If you look at photosig where I post most of my work (yes I was posting also in R'otica, and some images are still there but I got fed up by the recent vulgarity of the site ) you will see that I have images there which I did not post here because I am following the TOS of R'osity. And I did it also this time. You didn't like the the pic, fine, but don't tell me 'bear it in mind', 'we deem it not fit' etc etc because it is irritating. You are just exercising your power, fine. But don't tell me you are applying rules here. You are just taking arbitrary and far from objective decisions. It is your prerogative, ok. But expect people to get irritated by this. There is no guidance one can base his judgememnt upon whern chosing what to post, because the TOS is too vague and you don't follow it. In this context, a bit of PR from your side could have spared us all this useless debate.

I posted a message to reply to the accusations of comparing the moderators the military junta etc etc. But it hasn't been posted, I don't know what happened. I am not going to re-write, all I want to say is that of course I am not comparing the mods to killers, it goes without saying..
But I would like to understand one thing: are artists being made a favour to post their work here (looks like it from one of the messags above), or is it the other way around? I mean, would the site be able to make any profit if there were no images posted? I think this would help give a better cut to the discussion.

I just posted a much longer message, but I can't see it. have I been banned?

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. The facts are the following : my photo and the TOS. Based on the TOS, my photo should not have been removed, as simple as that. In fact the TOS says No Rape. No Torture. No Sexual acts. No Physical arousal. No Genital contact with ANY object, other than sitting or clothing. And none of these appear in my photo. The TOS don't talk about areolas, nipples, fingers and things like that. It talks about sexual arousal, and nobody in good faith can say that there is sexual arousal in my photo. There may be sexual arousal in your minds, but not in my photo. It is also true that 'Additionally, any post or image can be removed at the discretion of staff if it is deemed unsuitable for this community.**' But since there is NOTHING in the pic that would justify its removal when judged against the TOS, I am afraid that, as Illusions is saying (thank you Illusions), you should have had the decency of explaining better why in your opinion the image was not suitable AND you should have let me post it here in the Forum to allow people to dicuss it. Finally, as Illusions is again mentioning, it is advisable that you come up with TOS that can be more specific and address situations with greater objectivity. Removing images at your own discretion, with no support from the written rules, let alone from the viewers is rather irritating and abusive. Of course, it is again at your discretion, but if you are really interested in the well being of the community you should come up asap with detailed rules and as far as this image is concerned you should post it in an appropriate section and let people vote whether they feel it is suitable or not for the community. If the community votes in favour of his deletion I will shut up forever. But if it says it should be posted you should let it stay. This is what we call democracy, partiulcarly in a border line situation like this, for which rules were not adequaltely written up.

I totally agree with you. As a matter of fact there was No Rape No Torture No Sexual acts no Physical arousal No Genital contact with ANY object, other than sitting or clothing in that image.

Regarding the observation of layingback, if I understand it correctly, I think the problem goes back to what egregore was saying: it's all in the mind of the viewer. If somebody doesn't like nudity, he/she shouldn't like it all the time: computer generated yes,but photos no? And then again, why just some photos? can somebody tell me the difference between 'Sultry' (the incriminated one) and Denise 1 or Tribute to G Rigon? I think it is hardly defendible that Sultry is offensive and the other one no. It can be, in the mind of one viewer, why not? but do we want to enforce censorship on such thin subjective basis?

I agree with Egregore: the difference is in the mind of the viewer. It seems that nobody is able to address the point that I have at least another 8 images posted in which there is some 'breast touching' (I listed them above.) Can anybody tell me the difference between those and this one? On Renderotica: it used to be a good site and I used to post there (that's where I started actually), but I stopped because it has become a truly disgusting site, full of poor quality crap which mostly displays blurred genitalia or sexual acts.I don't think this image belongs there. To jumstartme2: I was not trying to re-post it in the galleries, I was trying to give an opportunity to people to view it here in the Forum to form a judgement. In any case that pic was by no means disgusting, violent, repugnant. -- The family friendliness of this site is guaranteed by ticking the box which filters all the nudes images: that's why artists who upload such images are required to tick it. If somebody doesn't tick it, views the image and then complains, this person to me is a hypocrit.

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. Good to know though that Agensmith laughs about it and he seems to be is very proud of himself.

It didnt work a while ago.