Have a care with who you claim is defending warez! Most of us see a member that made an error, the first and only time he's done that here thus far. If it happens again we will expect to see the site ban him. You seem to be the only one that wants to paint him a criminal. He has been told what he did was wrong, he has acknowledged that and apologized for it. Why do you want to continue to belabor the point... If you are incapable of distinquishing fact from fancy...or just have a desire to twist the facts to match your cynicism...further discussion with you is useless. Say whatever you want...unless XENOPHONZ wants to continue sparing with you, you can talk to yourself.

"Illusions, yes, newbies commonly make morphs from other people's morphs. That is not what happened here. He simply renamed the dials and left the morph data unchanged."

That's not what I said or suggested. I said people have made characters using other peoples morphs...they have also used morphs from other characters or even existing characters entirely. It's a common mistake among newbies, and was a mistake some who went on to become "poser gods" also made at one time or another as well.

"I will explain to him in detail what it is he did that was wrong.

Several others beat you to that in prior posts.

"...it was the exact equivalent of... blah...blah...blah... This is a form of warez and it is not all right to do.

Already explained, although the LOR analogy was not a part of that explanation.

"Perhaps you did download the texture from a Japanese warez site, and if you did it would certainly benefit us to know that URL."

It wouldn't benefit any of us...it would benefit Zrincx since he holds the copyright on the texture and is the only one that can file a formal complaint about it...something that could better be handled between Zrincx and thewishmaster via IM or email.

"If you didn't create it, don't distribute it without the permission of the creator."

Already pointed out by Anton...see post #27.

Feel better now that you've had your chance to chide thewishmaster and tell him everything many other people have already told him? :^P

thewishmaster "Im sorry Fish I did not know that It had a copyright as I downloaded it copyright free I have deleted the texture from my hd"

thewishmaster "Well that is a lesson I have lerand I did realye think that it was ok to use this tex ore I would never have used it... "

thewishmaster "As I have said once I did not know and Im sorry."

The above statements and the 8 plus apologies made by thewishmaster show that his mistake was lack of knowledge, there is no reason...besides cynicism...to believe otherwise. There have been many newbies that used morphs to create new characters not realizing that it was not "kosher" to do so.

Expecting him to say something that he says is not true to satisfy someone's cynicism seems a bit irrational and jaded. If honesty is what is wanted...then you must accept his explanation as honest until you have some solid evidence to prove otherwise.

Nothing more can really be said. Those that choose to see evil will find it whenever and where ever they look. My vote is for Lyrra to lock this thread before it get's out of hand.

Someone that doesnt know the proper use, has an illegal copy, it's not that great a leap to think that MAYBE the copy of poser is illegal. It is that great a leap. If you found a hundred dollar bill on the street and put it in your wallet...should everyone assume you got your wallet by stealing it? how many times have there been posts asking for serial numbers? happens here all the time so to me anyway it didn't seem like an out of the ordinary thing to ask... thewishmaster didn't ask for a serial number. The assumption was that since his freebie offering was an infingement...he was a thief and his tools were probably stolen too. He pulled the item as soon as he learned it was stolen, he provided a reasonable explanation, and he apologized umpteen times...that's good enough for me. If he does it again that will be a different story and I'd be hard pressed to believe it was a mistake a second time...but unless he does it again, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. If Zrincx or Rendersosity wants additional information from thewishmaster to help track down the source of the files...Zrincx and thewishmaster and Renderosity Staff can work that out between themselves privately, no need for it to be done publicly, and no need for anyone else to be involved...no need to bash thewishmaster...no need to get out the rubber hose and hot lights...no need to plant the stake, pile the kindling, and light the torches. The deal is done...case closed...everyone can move along now...there's nothing to see here... ;^p

Don't be so quick to judge. I seem to recall that Traveler pulled many of his early morphs because they were showing up in commercial products in the marketplace when it first started, and some of those products were created by members that have become "successful" in this "community" and others.

Many people have made the mistake of using others morphs and textures as a basis for freebies not understanding that it was improper to do so. This is a mistake that has even been done by some that have gone on to become "perfect demigods of Poserdom". What's even more disheartening is that some of these "demigods" only crawl out of the woodwork when there is a "witch to burn" and rarely to contribute anything of substance to this community.

thewishmaster made an error. It's not difficult to believe someone might use morphs from a character offered as a freebie on another site thinking it was ok to do so...especially if the included readme stated so...then rename those morphs to match the name of the character they are creating.

The "evidence" offers little to indicate a deliberate theft or not...and since it doesn't we should be willing to give thewishmaster the benefit of the doubt and believe his explanation...especially since he pulled the item as soon as proof that it "infringed" was offered.

I have to agree with FyreSpiryt, I too am sometimes ashamed to be a part of this "community".

Good point Silke. The search engines leave a lot to be desired. The search engine should be capable of booleans, you should be able to specify individual or multiple forums, search message headers or message body or both. I'm under the impression that improving the search engine is on the list...just not sure when it will be started.

I don't mind the "Help pls" posts either. I don't see them as rude or discourteous nor do I see it as a problem. I'll generally read them and offer some help if I can. If it's someone new and you can think of a more appropriate title, help them out by changing the title in your response to the post.

Want to take your gallery and leave because the number of posts has been limited to 1 per day? Fine...see ya...don't let the door hit you in the backside on your way out. Cut your nose off to spite your face if you want. I find these "I'm taking my ball and going home" actions boring and droll. If you really feel a need to test how "valuable" you are to the community...stop posting, remove your gallery without a whisper, and see how many members IM or Email you to find out why you did that.

If you want to do something to effect change...start an email campaign to Tammy with a constructive and rational approach to the issue. If enough members write, they might pay more attention...and if they don't...well at least you can say you made an "adult" attempt at letting your feelings be known and influencing a change.

I've been here since before R'osity became R'osity...in fact, since before the Poser Forum, when all this was a tiny website built by a young woman to share Poser freestuff. I've seen a lot of shit-storms here. The "storm" over the upload limits was fairly minor compared to some, and even the most "torrential storms" had little impact on the outcome even when "emphasized" by a rash of merchants packing up their stores and leaving. Trying to stir up the "townsfolk" into storming the castle with their pitchforks and torches just ain't gonna do much good...there's no "muscle" behind such activities.

The decision may have been made for reasons of bandwidth or for financial considerations...but it certainly wasn't done to regulate anyone's inspiration, limit expression, or devalue anyone's art...and it's seems just plain silly to take it personally and think otherwise! The deed is done...probably won't be changed...time to get over it and move forward. ;^)

Not with a "Zero Tolerance" policy. If there is decretion permitted...it's no longer "zero tolerance". The TOS does not provide for discretion in warez use, it requires the immediate revocation of membership in all warez cases. Why would you want to give discretion to someone that openly posts they are a warez user and provides a link to a site that provides warez? By doing so, you, and this site are encouraging warez use and condoning theft! It's mind boggling that this site can tighten it's restrictions on image standards, yet ignore it's zero tolerance for warez!

Zero tolerance huh?

"Members/Users found practicing these behaviors will immediately have their membership revoked, and access to the community permanently blocked from the community including any duplicate accounts for the same person."

Let's see...that person admitted to warez use, posted link to a site selling pirated software but got request to re-read the TOS and didn't immediately have their membership revoked. Nope, that's not zero tolerance. Please update the TOS to reflect the change.

I certainly applaud your attempt to make the TOS clearer. As expected, I'm sure, I have a few questions/concerns/comments...

Will this TOS also cover the marketplace and restrict the sale of "fetish" items and bondage implements due to their association with and suggestion of sexual situations (implied or otherwise), and torture devices under the "No Torture" clause of the TOS?

"No character attacks, which could be interpreted as defamation of character, slander, and libelous. The blanket restriction against character/personal attacks should stand, regardless of interpretation as defamation, slander, or libel. Such attacks are unnecessary under any circumstances.

What exactly is: "explicit S&M bondage situations"?

IMHO, "implied sexual situations" is very vague. What is "implied" is often in the mind of the beholder. Since people "behold" things according to upbringing, taste, culture, religion, etc...and since the admins/mods are also a diverse group, what guidelines have they been given to help them determine an "implied sexual situation" in an image?

"no sexual situations" or "implied sexual situations" goes a bit far in an attempt to avoid conflict. More than half the images in the gallery will need to be removed if this restrictions stands. My own image Shock in the Fairy's Garden could be interpreted as a sexual situation or an implied sexual situation and require removal. In fact, any image in which one or more of the subjects is nude could be targeted as depicting a sexual or implied sexual situation.

There are far less reasons to forbid "sexual situations" or "implied sexual situations" than explicit sexual situations. Indeed, an implied sexual situation may depict a celebration of innocence which should be glorified instead of restricted. I would suggest this be reconsidered.

"showing the inner portion of the vulva or vaginal area" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with physical arousal, some women are "constructed" in such a way that a bit more than a "suggestion" is revealed when their legs are parted...some "clarification" may be in order here.

There is concern with the distinction that approves visibility of a penis but not a "vagina". The exposure of one or the other, does not automatically denote a sexual connotation...in fact, in many artistic nude studies, the "sexual connotation" is unintentional and recognizable only in the minds of a segment of the viewers. To differentiate an exposed penis as acceptable and an exposed vagina as unacceptable sends a contradictory and negative message. If there is no "explicit" or overt sexual activity...there should be no restriction or differentiation between the two.

IMHO, a caveat may be in order when forbidding "crucifixion" images. Images of crucifixions to depict historically accurate images or religious images should be permitted.

This iteration of the TOS appears to be pushing the site closer towards a "G" rating. While limiting the depiction and propagation of "porno" or images unintentionally or expressly created for prurient interest, the site is also severly limiting the depiction of the human form and human sexuality...accepted and encouraged themes of artists for centuries. By the same token, it's emphasis on the heavy restrictions toward sex and not toward violence (aside from torture) is an obvious "Americanization" of atypical attitudes and views.

As a parent, I understand the sites desire to provide a "healthy atmosphere" for "younger" members; but, at the same time, I resent the heavy-handed limitations this new TOS places on my ability to determine what is appropriate for my children to view. As an adult, I resent the removal of my choice to view what I feel comfortable viewing. As an artist, I resent the restrictions and limits placed on my creativity.

For years, the site has been encouraged by members to permit "adult content" (not smut/porno) and to develop "filters" to allow those that wish to view "adult content" can do so, while permitting those that do not desire access to that type of material for themselves or their children can restrict it. That is a much better solution than an emphasis on filtering nudity, continually trying to define "how much nudity is too much", or painstakingly censoring every possibility that may cause a member to raise an alarm.

The Mission Statement of Renderosity says:

The mission of Renderosity is to create a thriving, productive environment that encourages an atmosphere of community, respect, collaboration, and growth for graphic artists of all backgrounds.

...graphic artists of all backgrounds... not children, not visitors, not non-artists, not art appreciators...graphic artists of all backgrounds. To severly limit what an artist can depict does not fulfill or encourage that "mission...indeed, it is the antithesis of that mission.

While I do applaud the attempt to define "appropriateness" and to appease all members, to do so at the expense of creativity, parental responsibility, and adult consideration does little for the community. I urge you to reconsider this in favor of creating an "adult content" flag to cover nudity, sexual situations (implied or not), and violence. Members 13 and below would automatically have the filter to restrict adult content turned on, with no access to the filter in their profile until a signed note from a parent or guardian is received. The restrictions against rape, torture, sexual activity, explicit sex, genital contact, character attacks, and the requirement of the signed model release for photos could remain in force.

Attached Link: http://www.winace.com

It's available from http://www.winace.com

It would probably be a waste. How many people would actually look up someone's profile to get that information before answering a question. Much easier to put it in the post with the question...even if it means the questioner has to be asked to come back and post it.

If it became a requirement I, for one, would feel it would be an invasion of privacy. That kind of information on a profile page makes it easy for R'osity to collect, "collate", and use for whatever. It's bad enough the "Gatesman" tries to get that kind of info from us.

I don't know how to make this any clearer...I have no differences with _dodger. The only reason I got involved in this is because fingers were pointed at me, that I felt were unfair, and I felt I had a right to respond. It was not my idea to make a spectacle of the incident. But, I can understand the frustration and anger that led to him making this post and bear him no ill will for doing so.

I admire dodger. I admire his knowledge, ability, and talent. He's a bright fellow with some great ideas, and I wish him all sucess with his website...although part of success in such an endeavor is being able to deal with people respectfully and rationally.

Any difference I had was settled long ago as far as I was concerned. I hold no grudge against dodger nor animosity towards him. I would just like to see him let go and put this behind him and get back to Poser.

The "nose comment" is something _dodger has posted a number of times when I have posted in a thread he has posted in...taken by itself, it seems innocent...but repeatedly used, along with other remarks...it becomes harassment.

I had no wish for dodger to be banned. All I want is to be able to participate in this community and freely comment without being attacked or harassed...just like every other member. That Spike decided to ban him, must have been a culmination of things that caused him to be warned multiple times.

It's like when you tell a child, if you do that again I'm going to send you to your room, every time a child does a certain thing after multiple warnings. If the child doesn't stop, you have to make good on your threat or the child gets out of control...and it's brothers and sisters will follow to see if they can get away with it too.

Yes, public information...that means you can discuss the content. That does not mean you can "cut & paste" it, especially without the consent of all parties involved. Someone was recently banned for "pasting" an IM in a post because they didn't have the permission of the other person. Of course since you're already banned...and back here again...you don't have much to worry about.

Now why don't you just stop harassing me, as I've asked you to do before. You don't have to like me...but that doesn't give you the right to make snide remarks and harass me as you see fit in public or in private.

_dodger, I'm not going to play your silly little game. You are doing much more that I could ever do to confirm my earlier comments.

No I will not dig up and post "the message" as it is against the rules here to post IM's...and I do try to follow the rules. By the way...you did not have permission to post any IM's from me, which is also against the rules.