Well, this is an eloquent silence. One of the most obvious rule in fair communication is to give an answer. I'd like that mods gave one to Heart'Song finally! One hour is quite enough to type some words that could make sense for us, even if we appear like analphabets to you.

"These are reasonable requests."
Normally yes, I completely agree with you and I don't think being the only one.
But what is usually reasonable seems to be unrealistic here...

Sndcastie, imagine I tell you that you made something really seriously wrong. What would be your first reaction? (sending me to hell apart, I mean)
Wouldn't you simply ask why I tell you this?
And if I keep on saying you do something wrong without giving any further reason, would you be able to know why you did something wrong? Would you be able to do the correct adjustements? Well, I don't see how you could. Do you?

Message edited on: 03/12/2005 13:33

"If you are not just on a witch hunt, then why don't you make clear rules and help us understand them? If you have no evil intent, then surely that must be your goal?" If A then B. Not B so not A. That is a valid reasonment.

MorriganShadow, "you can" means a lot of things...

Another strange thought is that the mods can't agree on the tos but can agree that some pics are not folowing them... Quite bizarre, no?

"It is quite difficult to display genitalia without being nude." "You can, however, blatantly display the genitalia while having most of the rest of your body clothed" This sounds like a contradiction, no? And as Heart'Song said some of her pics were NOT showing genitalia, nudity or erotic stuff but get erased though...

Nemirc, what brilliant examples of sophism you bring us! It's amazing! :D For those who don't know what a sophism is, it is a sort of reasonment that has the appearence (once again) of a valid argument but that is not. It is specifically orientated to fool people and conscienciously make them believe in things that are completely false. First sophism: We are diferent so we act differently. Those 6 sites are diferent one another. But they did the same here. :) Second sphism: If your explanation isn't good for me then the problem comes from me! :D Is your argumentation so weak that you had to say that? You're stating that you're necessarly right and that everyone not agreeing with you is a fool! Oh! Really, Nemirc, how could you say that? :) Third Sophism: You think we don't need to go into some pretty heavy explaining about what is an erection. Precisely, I would be very curious to know your definition in visual terms (so that we could compare with the pic) of an erection. You're trying to hide the problem turning me ridiculous, which is called as "personnal attack sophism". Fourth sophism: "a 14y old girl doing a "Vouge pose" doesn't work for me as art" This is your personnal feeling. It has nothing to do with a valid argumentation. Fifth sophism: "You kill a man..." Your analogy has nothing to do with the case of Heart'Song: she did not take any physical person to make her pics. Here you try to darken the problem perverting its essence. And finally we have this great conclusion: "If you have questions, post again. If you "don't understand me", take a grammar book and a dictionary". How charming and delicate of you to consider us as a band of analphabets. Well, this shows the respect you have for the members of this site. Congratulations and thank you so much to illustrate my words so perfectly! ;)

Yes. She does. But I would be very surprised she would.

Heart'Song you forget the BEST part of the tos: "this will be at the discretion of the Renderosity team" With such rules they can do whatever they want, you see. And as they never feel the need to justify their decisions with objective criterias about the pics they delete, you see what can happen here...

No nudity for underage. Consequently no genitalia. Those rules are very restrictive. Once again, I suggest you to deal with some other warm place where freedom of expression has still a meaning. there are some.

As far as I know 4 out of 6 of these sites are in USA, the 2 last being french. Yeah, now it makes 6 with Rendervision. :) I still wait for a real explanation.

I wouldn't count on any kind or form of apology from them. I wouldn't count on any justification neither. I went to Rendervision. Try it and love it, Heart'Song. You're loosing your temper, time and efforts in this place. Believe me: move, you'll feel so much better.

Oh, by the way, MorriganShadow, I'm still waiting for an explanation on the fact that 5 sites using the same tos as Ro act diferently from Ro... But maybe that question is a difficult one.

MorriganShadow: "The appearance of being underage" Where is the line betwin a teenager and an adult visually? You must have a sort of guide book, a "mod bible", to be so sure of your own appreciation. IMO, as long as you're talking about appearence, your personal perceptions are involved. This means that your decisions are based upon a SUBJECTIVE point of view. Consequently unjust and tyranic by definition. Deecey, you already live in such system. Of course you have plenty of choice, USA are known for that. But the choices you're offered are all the same in spirit. Religion has a MAJOR place in your everyday life: "In God We Trust", does that recall you something? Think of the President elections too: could someone get elected claiming he does not believe in God? ... The worst is still to come and it will come faster than you may think.

Deecey, clearly as you descibed those scenes, the pics will be deleted for sure: "No nudity for underage" says the law. Well, the law is stupid. Stupid laws produce stupid systems. Does anyone know Ubu? Or Kafka? "The Castle" from Kafka describes very well how far a system can go in absurdity just by applying absurd rules.