Ok, here's the deal... most of the technical issues are worked out and will be posted later with a complete rule/definition disclosure. The controversy is over boobies. Boobie definition now allows deep cleavage. Low cut dress/bikini is ok. But more needs to be sorted out. I still want this to be a family event! So here are two thoughts and yours are very welcome... 1. Definition of nudity will be modified to say something like "Nudity" means the showing of the genitals, pubic area or buttocks with less than a full opaque covering, yada yada, or the display of more breast than you would expect to see walking down the street on a warm summer's morning in a metropolitan area. If you wouldn't want your aunt Edith or your 5-year old to see it that's the line. 2. Definitions stay as they are with the cleavage modification and allow for a 'substantial covering' of the breast below the areola. There's a combo deal. An image that runs up close to the substantial covering and doesn't run close to the other definitions is ok. If an image pushes the envelope on all the rules, its out. What I'm getting at is this... An image that shows breast in a non provocative way would be ok, such as a mermaid in a classy scene with minimal covering. But put a scene together with a lap dancer at a nightclub with the same covering and its probably not family oriented. Obvious pitfalls are whether or not there is too much discretion for the managers and not enough guidance for the entrant. Or the other way around, too rigid and not enough freedom. So what's your choice, comment, idea?

Oh, the 'substantial covering' is a relaxing of the current definition that says no exposure below that area.

So what do you think folks? If you take these two options as a starting point what modifications would you want to see? How would you word it so that a scantily clad but classy mermaid or a lady in a low-cut evening gown is okay but a pole dancer is out?

I think the overall effect of the image would be the key for the "booby thing". The item that was in discussion for the valentine's theme was just so non-offensive that the rule for the under the areola seemed to make no sense at all, but for an entirely differant image, it could be the last straw, so to speak. A bit of common sense is needed to work this kinda thing out. In an artist community, you need to keep in mind that we have seen more breast in some of the old "masters" than was showing on the lady in that bikini. "An image that shows breast in a non provocative way would be ok, such as a mermaid in a classy scene with minimal covering. But put a scene together with a lap dancer at a nightclub with the same covering and its probably not family oriented" That statement is about what I would hope for.

IMO, if you're going to be playing all these word games and allow all this interpretation, you're bound to have some unhappy members at one time or another. To keep it simple, enjoyable, and FAIR to everyone...you need to use a NO NUDITY rule...and that means no nudity..period.... It will be a family deal where even little Mikey and Minnie, who've undoubtedly seen more breasts, pubs, and butts by the age of 10 than we old codgers saw by the time we were married...can view and enter the contest without ruining their precious little virgin minds. What is wrong with having a contest that requires its models to have clothes on??? If you want eroticism, go to Renderotica and have a contest. I read continual posts here on the fact 99% of the art on Renderosity is of bare breasted and overly endowed Vickeys...well here's your chance to change that a bit. Quit BSing around with the rules---if you have doubts about the way you want the content, make it succinct and to the point--no nudity...leaves no room for interpretation.

Attached Link: http://www.familystyle.com/advscripts/definitions.asp

Check this out for family definitions.... If you read sections concerning nudity, you will find terms such as full, partial, etc and what they mean... Then, if you define the contest rules as NO Nudity...it means exactly that...no see through dresses, no nude Vics behind a shower door, etc etc.... You will then have "family values" As this is an artist community, perhaps you should consider the fact there can be clean full nude scenes....and its also the parent's responsibility to see to it that their kids are not vieweing the stuff if that's the way they are bringing up their kids...NOT RENDEROSITY'S RESPONSIBILITY...put the normal nudity disclaimer on the contest page, and wherever else it needs to be. If I'm not mistaken, there is such a tag line when you sign up here... You guys are getting too wrapped up in all kinds of interpretation when the rules are already written....

It's hard to believe that theoretically creative people couldn't find a way to produce imaginative graphics and have, once a month, no nudity at all. It surprises me that people are so self-limited.

To me, 'no nudity' means the nipples on women, and genitals in general, are covered. So breast cleavage in either direction doesn't bother me at all.

I really appreciate your effort on this There are bound to be disagreements so the best you can do is to try to minimize them. I don't think it was the explicitness of the previous definition that was problematic (on the contrary), merely that it seemed too restrictive/conservative/whatever to some. The only potential problem I see with this revision is the contextual issue. Mermaid/lap dancer define the extremes pretty well. It seems that the same figures, same outfit, same pose, same decollete is OK in a blank scene or a living room but add some funky lighting and a jukebox and it's not OK. Loving family vignette of wife sitting on hubby's lap in one case, sleazy lap dancer chatting up a john in the other. I don't know if that's the case, fine either way. As long as the topic isn't cheesy satire for the artistically challenged I doubt dare enter, but just a thought. As to simple coverage, it would be easy enough to publish an diagram with the off-limits polygons highlighted in red. On the setting though... OK, I'm probably seeing problems where there are none, so I'll let the real artists hash this out. Thanks again for your willingness to work on this.

It blows my mind too.... this is why the world is so shitted up.... If you want family values, make the rules fit that...if you want a normal contest that reflects the rules of Renderosity, make it that way. If you're a parent and don't want your kid seeing stuff such as a human female breast, keep their damn fingers off the keyboard and mouse. There are already rules here defining the extent of nudity and sex in our images...the contest should uphold those, not some newly defined ones. Here's another way to look at it..... I signed up here on Renderosity knowing one of the rules is to not have genital contact, sexual images, etc....but it is allowable to have artistic nudity..not erotic or pornographic nudity..the contest rules here should reflect that stance....otherwise you are alienating the very rules we agreed upon when we signed up.

I'll go with the flow. Nudity does not bother me, but we get plenty of it in the gallery. Hope you can make this a non-issue, but I doubt it. Good luck and thanks for time and effort.

Dave, no nudity apparently leaves a great deal of room for interpretation. Dictionary defines nude as "without clothing", but there are all sorts of clothing that reveal and/or conceal varying amounts of portions of the body that some members of socitety consider to be objectionable. My first submission to the contest in question was rejected based upon the nudity provisions, and the character in that image was not nude. The shot was only from the waist up, she was wearing a dress which concealed completely all but the very top of the breast swell. However, that dress had a very low dip in the center that went below where the nipples would have been, assuming one could see them, which one could not. Eric expressed to me that this was not permissible, and whether or not I agreed with the rationale, I tend to try to follow whatever the moderators declare to be the guidelines. If they change those guidelines, I'm cool with that too. I think I agree with Petunia when she says "A bit of common sense is needed to work this kinda thing out". That really throws it back into the moderators' laps, and believe me, I wouldn't want their job for anything...because this sort of thing will always come down, at least to some extent, to a case-by-case basis. Hope your days are bright. Peace, Morgan

Eric, First, THANKS SO MUCH for offering challenges again! I entered last month, and learned some things becuase of my participation. I didnt' "win" publicly - but I won in the sense that I am a bit better at this whole thing than I was before last month's contest. Thank you. Second, I'm a bit concerned that your approach still needs some more firm guidelines which could be strictly and objectively applied. People get most angry when subjective decisions like "context" are applied. They often then take it public on the forum, and there are then outrage type statements made on both sides. It seems more in keeping with the goal of community harmony to have rather concrete rules that can be applied simply based on the rules. In situations regarding what defines too little covering these rules often seem totally silly, but they are easily enforced and applied because they are very objective. Some examples might include: - No portion of the nipple may be shown. - No portion of the breast inferior to (below) the top of the nipple line may be shown. - No protion of the breast inferior to (below) the top of the nipple line and outside of the middle 1/3 of the chest may be shown (to allow for deep necklines...). I know these type of things sound silly, but having some silly but enforcable rules may keep harmony a bit better around here than having someone simply decide if it's adult or not based on their own subjective intrepretation.

Nudity definitions are so varied that trying to define them is really silly. So, for that matter of, are definitions of "family" and "family values". Give up trying and make all the challenges animals or still lifes only. Nah, even then you'll offend someone. "walking down the street on a warm summer's morning in a metropolitan area" makes you ask what metropolitan area and which summer's day. In Portland during Gay Pride, many women in the parade go topless, don't get arrested, and no one really cares much. In Portland that is, one day a year. In some other U.S. cites, say Memphis, they'd be arrested. You're either going to offend some people with nudity, or others with what they percieve as censorship. If we worried about offending someone, we should not do our art at all. Or speak. Maybe not even breath. Trying to come to a concensus on how much skin can be shown below the nipples on only mature female figures is downright ludecrous. My own opinion is that the TOS itself should be the basis. Mark it if you think it's nudity. If you don't mark it, and there's a complaint, then the mods mark it. Trying to come up with secondary definition will satisfy few and just create more controversy. We get enough of that here. I do appreciate that you're trying, but you're in a no-win situation. Just make a decision, give up trying for concensus, and don't apoligize or make excuses anymore. If someone doesn't like it, they don't have to enter the challenge. I trust the mod's judgement and common sense. When we sign up, we agree to the rules listed. When we participate in a challenge, we agree to those rules. If we don't like the rules, we don't participate. One last thing. The mod's work hard, take the heat, and get d*mn little appreciation. Those 'sity junkies (like me) should thank them every day for the time and though they take. Even when they do try to define how much breast below the nipples for a mature female humanoid figure qualifies as acceptable nudity. Sorta sorry about the last line, can't help myself. There really is too much humor here to take it REALLY seriously.

Well, since my image was one that stirred this up, I'll comment. I had my Vickie's "goodies" all covered. There was just a bit of lower breast hanging below her bikini top. The old rules said nothing below the nipples. - even bare skin. I think the new rules are okay. I can see where the image I did could be put in another scene and have a completely different interpertation(SP). Good luck guys, no set of rules will be acceptable to everyone -- the old rules weren't acceptable to me.

One thing about it, discussions like this suck all the fun out of the challenge. It seems so easy to leave the nudity in the gallery and leave it out of the challenge (one graphic a month...just one), but, no, we have to stand around beating the dead horse drum. I agree about the mods having a thankless job. When people get obsessed to the point that they can't see above breast level or below crotch level, there is no rational discussion possible.

LOL interesting link Dave-So. To quote: "Cleavage - Clothing reveals a significant portion of female breasts without revealing nipples. Enough of the breasts are visible that attention is drawn to them. A conservative viewer might be offended, or a parent viewing the film with a child might feel uncomfortable." Whose attention, the parent's or the kid's? Conservative - Jerry falwell or Martha Stewart? Parent - Michael Jackson? I know it's fashionable in some circles to knock the Europeans, but somehow, I doubt they'd be having this conversation. Sorry, I know this is America and this is serious but still, it do be funny. So, my final comment is that maybe despite all the good intentions and honest efforts to please, take one of the two suggestions already given. Either: 1. Accept the apparently generally accepted definition of nudity - no nips, no bits and no butts. 2. No nudity. Select the hip and (on females) the chest/rcollar/lcollar and designate them as no render zones, patrolled by coalition moderators authorized to take out offending images. Given the legitimate desire for a family friendly atmosphere, I'd say the latter is the obvious choice. Go with it and to heck with those who disagree. You're running the contest. I disagree with the 'If you want nudity, go to Renderotica,' idea but if you want to try to avoid offending the most people, no nudity is the best answer, short of limiting the subject matter to inanimate objects. I still think the most rational way to try and please everyone is to simply have different contests. If you can have different themes, why not alternate or simultaneous contests one rated G for everyone, no nudity allowed, and one rated whatever where people can do Vicky in a habit or Vicky in nothing but a string of pearls if it suits them. NB I remember one summer as a child, getting into watching a now long defunct soap opera with my mother, being great fun. Thirty years or so later, I found it distinctly uncomfortable watching the modern day groping, slurping spit-swapping soaps with her. There should be a category for 'child viewing the film with a parent might feel uncomfortable.'

Sister Mary Agnes Joins the Mods "OK, we're agreed. No red at all, purple sometimes, and blue if someone really likes old 'I Dream of Jeannie'. And no, you can't repaint the red one more time! Thank you Miss VaVoom."

---the display of more breast than you would expect to see walking down the street on a warm summer's morning in a metropolitan area--- in ontario canada, it is legal for women to be topless in public.. anywhere... public anyways, private laws must still by adhered to... like no shirt, no service... lol... say that to a full figured naked woman bobin her nipplies at'chya!

It's embarrassing that these kind of issues are even issues here in America. As a society we seem to be WAY TOO UPTIGHT. There is nothing wrong with nudity. You would not even have families if there were no nudity. I'd much rather have children view artistic nudity than violence. Even some of the surgical shows that are now on cable would be enough to disturb kids far more than viewing the Venus di Milo or the Birth of Venus. I doubt an artistic nude would do the same. If we would just get over this nonsense of needing to censor nudity it would have even less chance of being disturbing in any way to a child. If nudity offends you, don't look at it. You have that right. Just as someone who likes to look at it, has the right to. Why must we as a society be so hell bent on trying to enforce our personal opinions on the rest of the country. This country was founded on freedoms, not limitations. The only way to successfully cohabitate in a country where everyone is free to pursue happiness is to take some responsibility for your own actions and pursue your own happiness. Change the channel, don't seek to eradicate the station. You have no right to impose your will on another adult. Feel free to discuss your views and plead your case, but at the end of the day it is up to you to police your own actions and allow everyone else around you the freedom to do the same. You have no right to try and restrict the rest of the country because you think your child should not see certain things on TV (for example) and you are too busy to take the time to watch over them and accept the responsibility for making sure they don't. There is an alarming trend in this country to try and blame everything on someone else (and then attempt to sue them over it!). Take some responsibility for your actions people! You are not a victim of anyone but yourself. OK. Sorry for the outburst. Rant on American prudishness and finger pointing over. Obviously the above is just my .02 To bring this slightly back on topic, I agree with those that feel there should be no difference in the allowed images between the contest and the TOS for Renderosity as a whole. Frank

Not trying to stir things up here, but I wonder why the obssession with nudity, and no concern at all about violence? Personally, I agree with those who've said that the TOS should apply - although I do see a difficulty there - people who have the nudity flag checked so they don't see the scary naked people won't see the challenge entries which contain booby bits (I assume), and therefore probably won't vote for them (although nothing is certain!). Glad I don't have to make the ruling - I don't envy those who do!

One day a month of clothed figures won't kill anyone. Might even sell some clothes, with is good for the marketplace vendors! So...how about we just keep the "boobies in the blouse", the "pecks in the pants", "the clevage covered", the "butts buttoned up" and get on with the challenge! Seems simple to me!:) I have no "obsession with nudity"....couldn't open Poser if I did! My obsession, is being tired of "endless rhetoric"!! On with the Challenge!!

Isn't the topic of the particular challenge relevant? In other words, maybe some challenges can be non-nude and others nude to the extent of the TOS. This would have to be included in the info provided at the onset of the challenge. "This months' challenge is to demonstrate a character's reaction to their first encounter with an alien being. This is a no-nudity challenge." "This month's challenge is to juxtapose the love of a newlywed couple with that of a couple that's been together for over 25 years. Nudity (within the TOS) is allowed." The determination of nudity/non-nudity could be made by the one who decides the challenge. Although there's no way to please everyone all the time, this might be a way to compomise. Thanks for your hard work, Eric!

Ok, thanks for the feedback. I sent the finalized version for review. If approved, it allows for slightly larger file size and cleavage. Hopefully some minor issues will be clarified. I realize I'm taking a more conservative stand than the TOS. I also respect artists who like full freedom (and I'm one of those). I hope this challenge becomes fun for the artists and viewers alike. Bobasaur, anything's possible.