dodger...you really should leave sleeping dogs lie. I'm sorry you got banned. It's not my fault you got banned...you made the choices that got you from a warning to a banning. You are not doing yourself any good by coming back and trying to cause problems and stir people up and taking Spike's decision out on me.

If you are having personal problems that are making you so angry and hateful...I'm sorry. If there's something I can do to help...please let me know. I know things can weigh us down at times and make us over react...but you need to take a deep breath and calm down.

pdxjims: Finally, after reading the last post, I've come to the conclusion that this is a very personal disagreement between dodger and illusions. They must have rubbed each other pretty raw. Pity they couldn't work out there problems like adults

Never make assumptions. One can hardly come to a conclusion when one does not have all the facts. No matter how "raw" someone feels "rubbed", there are appropriate and inappropriate ways to deal with things. I never had a concern or complaint about _dodger until he decided "prodding with stick" was the better choice than "leave sleeping dogs lie".

Just remember...I must not be the only person _dodger "misbehaved" towards...admins/mods overlook quite a bit, and repeated warnings are given before anyone gets banned. Obviously there were other factors that went into the decision to ban him.

Dodger said:

1) Illusions and I have gotten into arguments in the past.

An "argument" is a disagreement, a difference of opinion; and people sometimes have differing opinions. There is nothing wrong with an argument, as long as it remains civil. Without going into details, which unlike Dodger I feel aren't anyone's business, apparently Dodger had difficulty keeping civil.

Dodger said:

2) Illusions came into a thread I started.

It's not a crime, nor is it against the rules to post in a thread Dodger starts about a topic relevant to making a decision concerning appropriate content of a forum. Nothing I posted was derogatory, inflamatory, or argumentative.

Dodger said:

3) I wanted to avoid getting into another fight with Illusions. When I want to avoid getting into an argument with someone or to dispel an existing argument, I say something really weird.

Having a differing opinion from Dodger does not constitute a "fight". Nothing I posted was reason to "get into a fight" with me. Harrassment is not a particularly reasonable method to avoid fighting. To dispell an argument one does not post the same comment, meant to harass and provoke, over and over.

Dodger said:

4) I said 'I can see right up your nose. Might want to adjust the xrot on that'.

Because I don't agree with your opinion on something, doesn't mean I have my nose "up in the air" as you seem to be alluding too. Looks like an insult to me...and not the first time you posted that same comment to me. A vieled attack is still an attack.

Dodger said:

5) Spike banned me for this. THIS. THe weird thing I said to avoid getting into an argument.

Spike banned you because you have evidently violated the TOS on other occaissions requiring this measure to be taken. People don't get banned for being angels.

Dodger made the decision to harrass and provoke. Dodger must have had prior warnings from admins/mods and evidently made the decision to ignore them, otherwise Dodger would not have been banned. Dodger needs to accept responsibility for his decision instead of trying to shift the blame to others.

Has Poser run under WinXP on this machine before you had the hardware problems? Have you checked all your drivers especially your video drivers? Old or incorrect drivers can wreak havok with a machine.

"The Platinum design will just do unrepairable damage to other stores if they try to imitate it."

Sounds like an "old wives' tale along the lines of swallowing a watermellon seed will grow a watermellon patch in your stomach. Or desperation to keep an idea from spreading and taking a chunk of change away from the original. ;^P

Michelle A.: "Yes, illusions that is true, and had the member bothered to contact administration or the mod who deleted the image (which would have been me) he would have been given a more detailed explanation promptly. However, he decided that he wanted to make a big public stink about it, and repost the image here after it had been deleted as unsuitable."

IMHO, gilo25's initial post did not have the "flavor" of making "a big public stink" about it. He was confused and concerned about the judgement based on other images he has posted and raised some questions regarding the difference between the removed images and the ones that were not removed, and the factors that were used to judge his image unsuitable. It was polite, and above all expressed concern and confusion over what factors he had to consider when submitting other images. He specifically asked for the criterion that would be used to judge their suitability...which was never provided to him in this thread (perhaps he was given it in email though I have my doubts).

He was told, in so many words, to "follow the TOS", advised that there were rules, but never given the criterion. The information he asked for was never given. A number of mods responded, but many responses (some fairly hostile) were pretty much limited to defending the removal of the image and not answering his questions. In fact, the only one that even attempted to answer his questions was AgentSmith!

It certainly is gilo25's right to direct his concerns publicly and in this forum, one of the purposes of this forum, after all, is stated right at the top of the page:

This forum is to be used to contact the administration of this website to address issues relating to the operation and well-being of this community.

Seems to me, standards and criteria for image suitability, relate to the operation and well-being of this community, and are legitimate discussions that any member can and should participate in. In fact, I have raised certain concerns and asked questions regarding this issue as well...none of which have been responded too. Had mods spent more time responding to the questions and concerns and less time on the defensive or trying to shove "like it or lump it" down peoples throats, this thread may have had fewer posts and less tempermental contacts.

Michelle A.: "It wasn't necessary to go into detail publicly.....that is what I meant by my statement to him. Apparently I left off that very important word "publicly". As is the case here when, people who have no clue, get involved, twist things around, make issues bigger than they need to be, blah blah blah.....whatever. I'm done with it."

All well and good, if you didn't want "go into detail publicly" you could have emailed him the information. You could have even stated in the thread you saw no reason to go into detail publicly so you emailed him your response. So, you can be done with it but the overall issue still remains unresolved...until the next time this happens and someone else tries to appeal and understand only to be accused of starting a "shit-storm".

I guess the only thing remaining to ask is who you were refering to when you made reference to "people who have no clue, get involved, twist things around, make issues bigger than they need to be, blah blah blah..." That sounds suspiciously like a personal attack, which could be a violation of the TOS...trust me, if it were me you meant...I have a clue...quite a few of them I might add, I get involved because I care very much about this site and the members here, I haven't twist things around, nor have I blown anything out of proportion!

Once something falls outside the vague limits set by the TOS, then individual standards of each mod are used to determine the suitability of any questionable image. That makes those standards arbitrary because they depend on individual discretion not a definition...and there is nothing humorous about that!

Now, no one is saying there should not be rules...what is being said is there needs to be rules that are not vague and are applied reasonably, fairly, and consistently. Also being said is, yes this site is owned by someone...and since that someone is able to maintain the site and profit to a great extent, from the purchases by it's members...the site owners should pay more attention to the wants, needs, and concerns of the members!

Having arbitrary rules and vague standards has everything to do with productivity, collaboration, etc. Without consistent community standards and values productivity, collaboration, and most of all...creativity are stiffled. We do understand you rely on the TOS which is a good general framework...but in many respects it's vague enough that a mod could abuse the application of the TOS to censor images or speech that they dislike or disagree with.

Let's look at the TOS:

Members/Users will not use this community for;

o Any practices that affect the normal operations of the community (Admins will take whatever steps are necessary to restore service)...extremely vague, Mods don't like your topic or don't want a topic raised and you raise it...bang...TOS violation. Lots of room for potential abuse here.

o Transmitting any libelous, defamatory, or any other material that could give rise to any civil or criminal liability under the law...fair and pretty easily determined.

o Personal attacks. This includes but is not limited to, destructive, abusive, defamatory communications in any form, and retaliatory attacks from personal attacks. If you need assistance, please communicate with someone from our Renderosity Team...a bit vague, could be abused (has been a few times in the past). There is a wide latitude to arbitrarily decide what or who is destructive, abusive, defamatory, retaliatory.

o Destructive commentary/communications made with the intent to disrupt or attack (Trolling). This applies to any communications within this community, whether in the forums, art galleries, graffiti wall, chat, or IM...(see above) very vague.

o Advertising or linking to any publications and/or web sites that are age restricted due to content, and/or pornographic in nature...hmmm...Renderosity is age restricted due to content here, makes this a bit vague as well.

o Posting Unacceptable Images:

o No Rape...understandable, most people could agree what a rape depiction is...there are some exceptions that could be argued, but for the most part it's pretty clear.

o No Torture...a bit vague here, one could consider an image of Christ on the cross as depicting torture, especially since crucifixion was meant to be torturous. An image of Ben Hur at the oars being whipped could be interpreted as depicting torture. An image of the Spanish Inquisition could be ruled as unsuitable.

o No Sexual acts...vague enough so that an activity that has nothing whatsoever to do with sex could be interpreted as a sexual act causing an image to be removed. When is touching a breast sexual and when is it not? Is a hand resting on a pubic mound that is covered by cloth or clothing a sexual act...it might be. What about 2 nude men wrestling...one man holding the other in a headlock with his hips pressed against the buttocks of the man in front...it could be a sexual act.

o No Physical arousal...extremely vague. When does an erect nipple constitue physical arousal and when does it not? What about flushed cheeks and a flush across the chest...both are signs of sexual arousal in some men and women.

o No Genital contact with ANY object, other than sitting or clothing...when is an object not an object...when it's a body part! By definition a hand could be touching genitals as long as there is no physical arousal nor a sexual act taking place. That's easy if it's a man's genitals that's being touched...if the penis isn't flacid, it's likely that the male is aroused...er, unless he needs to use the bathroom that is.

o No depictions of young humanoid characters in erotic, seductive, provocative poses or context...ok, a little vague but fairly well defined, and won't cause any problems as long as it is applied as a "child pornography safeguard" (although fairy images could be a problem).

o Images that are character attacks, which could be interpreted as defamation of character, slander, and libelious...fairly easy to intrepret.

Additionally, any post or image can be removed at the discretion of staff if it is deemed unsuitable for this community.

Another vague, all purpose "rule" that has great potential for abuse can be found under:

Conduct - Zero Tolerance

o Intentional practices that affect the normal operations of the community (Admins will take whatever steps are necessary to restore service)...very vague...what practices are they? Is that specific only to something that interupts the site preventing connection?

Now certainly, no one expects what's acceptable to be defined microscopically, but there's a lot of room for improvement here. Certainly some things need to be left up to the discretion of the site representatives...but they should not have such vague standards to base their determination on. It's because those standards are vague and in most cases so open to interpretation that could cause one image to be removed and a similar image to remain...and that's what creates controversy.

Since there is no defined appeal process that a member can follow, it causes even more consternation because the member feels the only recourse he has, is to attempt to involve the membership, especially when he is given no specific, defined reason for his image to have been removed, and is continuously given only vague references to certain sections of the TOS.

Every member deserves a specific and detailed explanation of the reason for an image's removal. NEVER should a member be told that a Mod does not feel it necessary to go into detail for that particular case.

I do have to agree with X-perimentalman to a large extent. Even though this is a "private" website...it's member credit cards that keep the site afloat. It would seem "management" would much pay more attention to members comments, whether they concern censorship, the look and feel of the site, or anything else. It shall be interesting to see if the PTB just let this thread die, or if they respond to my comments and concerns raised in post 42.

To save the clip on a PC...right click on the link, the choose save as.

Let's get some things straight. I am not arguing for allowing gilo25's image to be displayed. I did not say the mods should have had the decency to explain why the image was not suitable. I did say they should have provided a more specific and detailed explanation as a courtesy. But courtesy works both ways...you have to give it to receive it! It's one thing to disagree with a decision...it's quite another to attack the mods for the decision that was made.

Telling someone something is "unsuitable" without further explanation is like telling someone "just because". It's not a sufficient or credible reason...nor is it a reason easily respected.

Constantly thrusting the argument that this is a private site and the "owners" can do what they want does little to "create a thriving, productive environment that encourages an atmosphere of community, respect, collaboration, and growth for graphic artists of all backgrounds." as is claimed on the Renderosity "About Us" page.

It is hypocritical of this site to remove works deemed as unsuitable by arbitrary standards of a small group of people...when bondage gear, fetish outfits, and torture items The Judas Torture Chair are sold in the marketplace. For a site that wants to maintain a "family friendly" atmosphere, one can't help but wonder who in the "family" a chair with a spike in the seat (suitable for the impalement of an anal or vaginal cavity) is aimed at.

I'm not sure what the message is when the site decides to remove a supposed sexually suggestive image but offers a set of restraints to turn your Vicki into a bondage slave - MWBondageGear2, $16.00, includes bondage mask with with a BallGag or BitGag. How suitable are the LQ MM2 Poses 3, $11.95 "20 Mike & Mike Poses for Michael 1 or 2 to create 10 sexy scenes". The image depicting the poses show 2 Mikes embracing, preparing to kiss while one Mike's thumb rests on the edge of the areola of the other Mike. Perhaps the mods should take a look at them, after all...the half naked men, the placement of the fingers, the men look like they're engaged in foreplay.

I believe all the Mods try to evaluate questionable material fairly, but is it reasonable for them to be left "hanging in the wind" with only their own arbitrary standards to rely on. Maybe it's time for the site to define some basic, consistant standards to make room for "erotic" images protected from "sensitive eyes" by a nudity flag, or go over every product or image on the site with a fine tooth comb and send what isn't suitable to Renderotica...or does "unsuitable" only count in the galleries and not in the marketplace? :^p

Taking a look a gilo25's gallery and specifically the images he points out are similar (i.e. breast touching) to the "removed" image...one can't help but wonder what activity was depicted that suggested such "an overt sexual feeling" requiring that image to be deemed "unsuitable". Much of his work, IMHO, suggests "an overt sexual feeling" which should not be considered "unsuitable" in general nor should it be mistaken for "prurient".

Looking at his other images, it could appear an inconsistent standard may have been applied, although it is hard to say without seeing the actual image. It would seem to me, especially if this were a case of only one member complaint and coupled with the quality and similarity of images already in gilo25's gallery, a much more specific and detailed explanation could have and should have been given as a courtesy to gilo25.

That said...perhaps it is time to establish a less vague standard than "unsuitable" and a tad less subjective then "discretion", at least to the extent that it serves as a basic guideline that the members can understand will be followed. It may also be time for the site to create an actual appeal process for such instances. A legitimate process a member can follow, that can be assured of fairness and legitimacy.

I'm proud my work has been selected to appear on the DVD among talented and creative artists here at Renderosity. Count me in for a copy of the dvd Spike.

*And, a lot of questions are always asked and answered in the Community Improvement Ideas Forum.

Believe me, pretty much any post that has something to say about the site one way or another is seen by the Admins and discussed in our forums.*

Hmmmmm...I don't think I ever remember seeing a thread asking:

Please change the site colors and prevent us from customizing them!

:^p

ceba, could you post them side by side...it's a lot easier to compare than flipping back and forth. Thanks :^)

Nope...don't like it. Want things back the way they were, let us change all colors, including the top and sidebar. Don't like to have to scroll the screen left or right to accomodate the new size of the banners. Like the new logo... Flexibility is key ;^)