Yes... Have to look my runtime. Please hold the line...
(and the money ready)

LOL @ R_Hatch.
Thanks, that made my day... :thumbupboth:

Well those people who spent their working time with visiting any non work related web sites should be sued and fired at once. What they look at doesn't matter in this case.

If a product is about hair colors or exterior settings there is no need to show anything that some screwed mind could think of as offensive but with body textures and many other stuff it makes no sense if one can only see a bit here and a bit there.
When using nude figures in the final pictures, I want to know what they will look like before buying them. It's often a game of luck as it is now because the preview pics are not always of sufficient size or quality.
Even if there's an option of refund or whatever it's way to long-winded to get rid of this particular product and my money back. Further the money can not work for me for the time I don't have it.
The latter maybe appears as an insignificant problem, but it becomes much more important if there are many transactions and much money involved. Additionally to the missed interest the transactions and working time will cost quite a bit.

The whole concept that they'd came up with here is... LOL.
There is no sense and nothing good. Actually I don't even know who should profit from it in the end.
Would be better to split the site into an area for art containing nudity (but not pornography) and one for art without. The same with the marketplace.
At least this would make a little sense then. But only a very little.

There's something about this place that reminds me strong of religious fanatics because these folks tend to make rules without any sense and without any logical consistence out of something that had some sense and logic consistence once.

Whatever. Pictures are the root of all evil and boobs are the evil itself...
Bloody beaten chicks that show their boobs while will give rise to the end of mankind and will provoke the wrath of whatever god (or at least some terrorist who want's to play god).
Let's make an art related website without art and no one could complain.

... @#$!!

-Whateverer

Have not read the whole thread but the first few pages.
This idea sounds very good so far.

One thing I want to mention is that it speeds up analysis if the artists leave some words on what
they noticed, what they think doesn't fit and what is done intentionally.

If for example someone has done some weird lighting/shadow in a pic and knows about this
issue, but doesn't know how to fix the problem, then it would be useful to know for the
commenter. If it's intentionally weird it's also good to know...
Otherwise it's always a lot of consideration from what the artist might be aware of, what he
won't change, what he can't change to what's his goal for this pic.

Regarding new users, a knowledgebase could turn to be an great addition.
I don't know about the Poser Manual too well, but the manuals that come with XSI, shade and
maya are not really that much of a help if one needs a quick solution for some specific problem.

For Poser the most obvious problem, if looking in some random galleries, seems to be that
people simply have no idea how to rig the figure. Next thing would be how to use lights. (This
"standing in front of nuclear blast lighting" syndrome)
There are for sure more things like these that can only hardly be explained within a few lines of
comment.

Now it's more than 1 thing but well... :p

My 2c
-tow

I was never shocked if I opened a page and the first thing I saw was a nipple... Not even if close to my face. :p

Anyways, this policy thing needs some review.
In another 5 years there will be only architectural pictures allowed or what?
Or should this site end as an huge advertising platform for certain 2D/3D software?

Right now one could not even post pictures that document war crimes just because they are way to violent, disgusting, whatever and they depict people that maybe are naked and/or were or will be harmed, killed, ... Basically they often contain exactly the things that are not allowed to show.

I don't talk about the thumbnails, but the picture itself that must not contain this and that and whatever else and blabla. Basically an empty black picture is allowed.
Or one that depicts a small cat... But only if it's not aroused of course.
Shouldn't a bee sitting on a flower to collet pollen be forbidden as well? It's sexual action so to say...

Less offensive said: To separate all the pure sexual action oriented pictures from the more moderate ones was maybe a good step, but to comply with everyone who complains about that nature is as nature is, now that is simply not good.

What other reason than commerce is there to follow those complaints? I terribly fail to see it.
A professional art website should depict any art because philosophy and logic demands it.
Art is art, not because everything is perfect (than there would be not a single picture) nor because the artist is of great renown but because the art is an expression of somebody.
If it's an site dedicated to the art of ... Tizian, then there would be pictures done by Tizian.
If it's an site about art done with whatever then there would be art done with whatever and by whoever.

And nothing else.