I am going to try and answer this point by point, so you'll see why I am torqued off, one last time. "If you want to help define the rules of this site, We welcome that." That's what I was trying to do and got told to in effect sod off and mind my own business. This is not the first time either I may add. Since I started keeping a lower profile on all these sites, you may not remember me, but I have been here, under this user name since it was the Poser Forum. As for helping define the rules of this site, as a member, every time I have tried that I have got a variation of the sod off line, or treated, like a dog, and got a pat on the head and a bone, but no action on the issue, or no one listened. "If you feel that images are being pulled and should not be or for the wrong reasons, please tell your side of the story" Uhhh, that's what I was trying to do when the thread got locked. All I was getting, was non-answers and a veiled insult from the mod who did the deletion. "As far as gilo25's image being pulled, that matter is closed." The point has been, not the fact the image was pulled, which doubtless was done with the best of intent. The problem seems to have been the lack of a clear concise explanation as to WHY the picture was pulled. 4 different mods answered that thread, as to why the picture was pulled, and all 4 had a different reason. Also by one mods own words, the criterion for pulling the picture, was to paraphrase, "Is the picture suitable for a family oriented site." Now truth be told, nowhere in the TOS do I see anything about "Please restrict your artwork to things suitable to a family site." This leads those of us who asked for clarification to believe this was an arbritary decision, and not a consistent application of the rules. In effect the question became, was the picture pulled after an objectively as possible, comparison to the TOS, or more subjectively to another guideline. To give credit, one Mod did suggest the girl in question had one hand on her nipple or breast area in a suggestive way. That can be construed, even if a bit of a reach as a TOS violation, but that seemed to be an after thought side argument to the unsuitable for family argument. Obviously the IM sent to the artist was a little fuzzy as to the reason to the pulling, since the artists first posts were to the reasons why. Improvement needs to be done there in future cases. Hence the hammering away at the Mods involved for their reticience to answer questions. "I locked that other thread because members were getting to the point where they were just slamming eachother. We will not allow member to break our rules to make there points. that will only leed to warnings." I think you may want to reread that thread, the members were being very polite and controlled, it was the staff, namely a Mod doing the slamming. Of course that precedent, and double standard has been in effect here for a long time. "We welcome the members to get involved in how we deal with the removal of images." Then a Mod telling us in more subtle language of course, that we weren't involved, couldn't know what was happening, we were just trying to stir up trouble, and to butt out was all a mistake? Locking the thread where we trying to get involved, and help, doesn't lead me to believe that statement either. "Most all the rules of this site were made by members getting involved." Like the closing of the Complaint and Debate Forum? 'Nuff said. "Trust me, If you put a good plan on the table, we will review it." Possibly, in the past, and again in this situation, it doesn't seem so, but I'll grant this one, it could happen. Might be as likely as an drunk leaving a bar before closing time, but I'll take your word for it. "As far as you spending money in the marketplace, well, that's up to you..." You're quite right, that is up to me, and since it seems to be my only form of protest or to effect positive change, I will either purchase elsewhere, or do without, and be a bandwidth leech, until I see positive moves I can live with.

What is a bandwidth leech? The last time I heard that term, it referred to a site that posts direct links to thumbnails and images on another server (in other words, deep-level links). But this is probably impossible here, since it's likely Renderosity uses the standard htaccess script to prevent deep links.

Naaah, nothing so nefarious in this case, just simply perusing the galleries, posting periodically in the forums, using bandwidth, while surfing, but not buying anything, to offset the cost. In effect becoming a low level bandwidth leech, using, but not returning, or supporting. It is the only sure fire way I can think of to drive home my point.

This behaviour of the modeartors is really insulting. I was prepared to put this thing to rest, as some mods had given me the impression that they acknowledged the validity of the points I made, particularly those related to the fact that you could use better PR skills and justify better when you remove a picture from the gallery. However the way Michelle A replied to the very valid points of illusions (and the way Spike locked the tread) shows that you haven't understood anything and Michelle is also lying through her teeth. In fact as soon as I got that first email informing about the removal which DID NOT adequately explain the reasons why it was removed (I pasted it in my initial Forum message), I DID SEND AN EMAIL TO RENDEROSITY (by just replying to Michelle's message) in which I was stating my astonishment and although I was not asking specific questions, it was a CLEAR CRY FOR HELP: I WAS ASKING FOR AN EXPLANATION!!! BUT NOBODY BOTHERED TO REPLY AND THAT'S A WHY I POSTED HERE. I still have that message. I didn't want to make a stink about it, I just wanted to know better. Your attitude is insulting, Michelle and you should know it! the only reason why I wanted to post it here was because I thought this is a free place where things can be discussed. But it isn't. There was no reason to go publicly? WHY DID YOU NOT REPLY TO ME THEN??? because you were hoping that people would just shut up because you sent them a hasty email telling them not to be naughty next time? it is a shame that you still persevere in your attitude after what other people have said. You are the ones who made a stink out of it, because you didn't give explanations in the first email you sent me, you prevented me from discussing the pic here, you locked the tread, and you don't want to listen. You have the capacity of screwing up things that work with your attitude. Did you not realize that I was trying to calm down things? And you have the guts of accusing me of stirring up things? After you lie by saying that I didn't say anything after I got the message from you and went publicly right away? Shame on you! Now you can lock me, kill me, burn me..

This issue is not about gilo25's image. Like I said, that matter is closed and I am not going to talk about it in public. If you want to open up talks about how the rules of this site are unfair or need to be changed, Please bring it on. So far, I got that you feel the IM's sent to members about image removal might be unclear. Anything else? gilo25, Please take this issue to e-mail spike@renderosity.com

You can't call it work if you love it... Zen Tambour

"Please restrict your artwork to things suitable to a family site." Until now I am breaking my brains trying to understand what the hell "a family oriented site" can be!

Stupidity also evolves!

It was my intention to open talks when I replied to Michelle's removal message externating my astonishment. But I didn't get anything in reply. You will maybe say you didn't get it? maybe.. I had the same intention when I then started the tread here and in good faith I wanted to show the image for peple to be able to discuss. I was accused of stirring up a stink for that. So now all of a sudden you want me to bring up the matter?? I think it has been brough up already, quite thoroughly! This is not a matter between me and Renderosity any more. This is something which concerns the community. At this stage what I want is the following: 1. An admission and an apology from Renderosity's management for having sent me an inadequate communication when the image was removed. 2. An apology (or a reasonable explanation) for having ignored my message sent in reply to Michelle's first message. 3. An apology for the fact that Michelle (I am paraphrasing now, because I don't feel like going through all the exchanges again) said clearly that she did not feel necessary to go in more detail in this issue and explain further. 4. An apology for having deliberately depicted me as a trouble maker who wants to go public to create havoc, while this was caused only by the fact that my 'private' message was not answered. I am not questioning the removal of the picture, I am questioning the process followed by the mods, the unclear rules, and the total lack of communication skills displayed by the mods throughout this unfortunate episode. I don't have anything more to say in private. Everything that needed to be said has ben said. You have more than enough elements to start a review of your censorship system, I don't need to add anything and I do believe this has been helpful because whatever you say I am sure that deep down you recognize that the system is in desperate need of a revamping. I do think the Management owes me an apology for those 4 issues I just mentioned. It is up to you whether you want to do it in public or in private. I personally don't mind either way as far as the other points, but for point 4, since Michelle publicly accused me of 'stirring up a stink', I would like it to be publicly retreated. And I would suggest that the Management of Renderosity spend a few thousand dollars in a communication skills training for its mods. They desperately need it! I am a personnel management specialist in my 'real' life and I can tell you that any company who has communicators this bad in key areas of public relations is bound to run into troubles sooner or later.

I know this is getting off-topic, but: {IT WILL BE A COLD DAY IN HELL BEFORE I EVER SPEND A DIME IN THE MARKETPLACE AGAIN!!!!!!!!.} You may want to come up with a better threat than that. The new site design changes had a bigger, negative impact on the Marketplace than 1 person threatening to never shop here again. The admins of the site are so used to keeping sales low (and prevent the promotion of items) that 1 person not buying anything is not much of a threat at all. Now, if you said that you would be taking your $5,000 monthly purchasing budget to another Poser site, then the admins may take notice. Well, if you actually spend $5,000 a month, that is.

If you have "$5,000 monthly purchasing budget" please remember that I exist!

Stupidity also evolves!

Still waiting for a e-mail from gilo25 Please send it to spike@renderosity.com And Some ideas from anyone else that wants to help improve the system..

You can't call it work if you love it... Zen Tambour

Some ideas from anyone else that wants to help improve the system. *Lower taxes *Driver's licenses should be valid for ten years, until age 65, then for six years *Pick up the pace for electric car research, and in the meantime, push the hybrid electric/gas car *Let Amtrak die a natural death and quit feeding it our tax money *Let's see some boobs on TV, like they do in Europe (And I don't mean the politicians) *Free health care and prescription drugs for all, regardless of employment or unemployment. Tax smoking and fast food to death to pay for it *Make superhero movies illegal I'm sure I could come up with more, but this gives you something to begin with right away.

Damm Mike, That is a good list..

You can't call it work if you love it... Zen Tambour

Thanks..

You can't call it work if you love it... Zen Tambour

Jeez, that's what I get for being in a good mood at the wrong place at the wrong time, LOL! Sorry, didn't mean to impose...carry on....

I have a clear idea of what constitutes appropriate content for a family-oriented site (no X-rated, R-rated or NC-17-rated images). But it may be a cultural thing that needs clearer explanation. In the meantime, those who don't have a clear idea of what constitutes appropriate content for a family-oriented site can absolve themselves of worry by allowing the moderators be the judges. There's always Renderotica available to accept images that are dubious here.

The other problem is that some people get bogged down in a subculture where pedophile, underage or sexually explicit images are the norm. They tend to associate and interact only with those who agree with them, so they lose sight of the conservative nature of U.S. law and custom in that regard. It must be a shock to them when they hit a PG-13 site like this. But it's a case of protecting the most vulnerable elements of the society who use this site, not a case of "anything goes" to cater to each fringe subculture.

Very well said!

You can't call it work if you love it... Zen Tambour

I've been reading all the views on this and I still don't get it. Communication issues aside, what's the big deal? Stand too close to a cliff edge and sometimes you fall, sometimes you don't. Solution: Don't stand so close. This site has the most relaxed rules of any reputable art site on the web - or at least of the 10 or so of which I'm a member. I don't particularly want the TOS to include every variation of what's acceptable and what's not, because I can pretty much work it out for myself. And if I decide to post some image of a woman's biff or a guy rutting a goat, I accept there's a chance it will get removed. C'est la vie. Next time I'll paint a flower. TafkaT

"But it may be a cultural thing that needs clearer explanation. In the meantime, those who don't have a clear idea of what constitutes appropriate content for a family-oriented site can absolve themselves of worry by allowing the moderators be the judges. There's always Renderotica available to accept images that are dubious here." Yes, telling artists to sod off and post at another site is a good answer.NOT I entered this fray, on the grounds of seeing what I believe are three major systemic problems with the process of pulling pictures. The first problem has been fairly well addressed now. An ambiguous or short I.M. is not enough when pulling a picture. A short I.M. telling the artist in question the picture has been pulled, and that a more specific detailed email has been sent to the email they used here to register with, would seem the least the mods could do. That seems to me, to be at least one way to combat the posts artists make wondering why their picture was pulled, or at least ease some of the confrontational nature of the posts. The second systemic problem seems to be the judging criteria. When I registered with this site, I read and agreed to a TOS. While I understand the TOS needs to have a broad range of discretionary powers, it is the standard we artists agreed to follow and our actions be judged by. If our art is to be judged fit for this based, on "a family oriented site", then the front page should say so. As I tried to say in the other thread, even though all moderator decisions will have some subjective elements to them, judging whether art is suitable for this site, really should be done as objectively as possible against the TOS. Not subjectively against another unwritten standard. I also see a third systemic problem. The first response from management, i.e. the mods, in the locked thread, were defensive, and refusing to answer publically. We are now as a society, demanding more transparancy in our governments, and businesses, simply because the light of day exposes inequities in any system. More transparancy to the members in these type of decisions, and the reasons as to why, when publically called on those decisions, couldn't hurt this website, only help. Star Chamber proceedings went out in the middle ages. Now to give credit, where credit is due, AgentSmith, in the censorship thread,did do an admirable job of just that, giving his reasons, keeping his cool, and explaining clearly and specifically why he felt gilo25's picture needed to be pulled. Those are and were my big beefs in this situation, as well as getting hit in the face, with the dead mackerel of an argument, "that this website is privately owned and can set the rules any way it wants." While true in most regards, the main thing the site doesn't own, and most needs is the actual artists. We are both commodity, and clientele. This site and it's management would do well to remember that. To take the art gallery analogy used in the other thread one step further, If you open the gallery and no one hangs any work on the walls, you're just another bankrupt website.

Thank you! Point #1 We send a e-mail or IM to the member when we pull a image. I tend to use IM because I know when they get the message. (Some members change there e-mail and or never look at it) We explain why the image was pulled to the member. 99% of the time we will not count this on there record because we feel most members might not be 100% clear on the rules and this will clear that up. 99% of the time this the member understands and it never happens again. Sometimes the member does not understand why. They then repost the image thinking they have the right to do so. This is where they get into trouble, That is the point when they break the site rules. At this point we must take action. Point #2 Our TOS is prety clear on what we will not allow on the site. We have put a lot of thought into the wording of it and feel if we add more rules it will only make it harder to understand. I don't think many members want out TOS longes or more complex. Point#3 We do not publicly tell the members anything about other members that is not their busness. (just like your real job) How would you feel if your boss posted a nice big note in the break room that he just ripped you a new one. Our TOS also states this. "Renderosity considers this information private and confidential." My mods did not tell you to "sod off". If they did, I will deal with them on that. They told you that this matter is not about you and you do not have all the facts. You are hearing one side of the story and are judging us on that. We are not going to post the facts of this issue in public as it does not involve other members.

You can't call it work if you love it... Zen Tambour

"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." In the literal sense, no I wasn't told to sod off however, upon reading the above quote, which is directly copied from Michelle A's post, it is a natural conclusion on my part as to the intent of the statement, and certainly got that feeling. If it is a misunderstanding fine, no problems on this end over it anyway. I get told worse on a regular basis:} However the attitude certainly belies the members helping with the rules statement. The two are related, getting told you don't have a clue, certainly doesn't make a person think anyone in authority is listening. This next section is a direct quote from kbennet, post #34 in the other thread. "The facts are simple. I'll go slowly. 1. There were complaints about your image. 2. As a result, it was brought, by a moderator, to the moderator team for review. 3. The criterion for review was "is this image suitable for a site which aims to be family friendly?" 4. Each moderator considered the image and placed a vote. 5. The result of the vote was that the image was not suitable. 6. Your image was removed." Note point #3, it bears repeating "3. The criterion for review was "is this image suitable for a site which aims to be family friendly?"" Again, please judge pictures against the TOS, and remove all violations accordingly. I firmly agree with that, but I would like to know where in the TOS or any printed list of rules this criterion is? I truly want and need to clarify my position on this point, it is the big sticking point for me, I as an artist, or reasonable facsimile there of, reads the TOS, and any other printed material pertaining to posting guidlines, posts a work, and then gets it pulled based on something that ISN'T in any of that, but another more nebulous standard, that I as the poster CANNOT have any idea as to it's presence or definition. Now do you see where the confusion and potential hard feelings come in to play? I am not saying the result in this instance would have changed the end decision at all. I am definetly not saying the end decision was wrong. All I am saying, is, if that is the criterion of judgement, then that criterion needs to be posted somewhere, so the artists know it exists, and can tailor their posts accordingly. As for the transparancy issue, certainly I agree with not going about announcing so and so had a picture pulled, but when the poster who has had a work pulled, comes into the correct forum, the forum specifically for contacting the Admins, and asks for a clarification, I think that clarification needs to be given. Obviously if that clarification of the reason for removal isn't rock solid. it's going to get some flack. Sometimes it may get flack even if it is rock solid. But as a poster here I do feel I should have the right to know and understand the process my posts are judged by. Since the only way to see the process is to either knowingly violate the rules, or question them in a thread, clear concise answers are appreciated when given.

Spike, I don't understand why you are waiting for an email from me. Did you read post #9? As I just said, I already sent an email to michellea@renderosity.com on 20/6/03, replying to her email telling me that the image had been pulled. I never got a reply. Therefore I started the thread that you all know. Now I am waiting for the management to contact me, addressing my requests laid out in my post 9 above.

By teh way, I am also amazed that, after all this, you came up with post 22 which just doesn't consider at all what has been said so far about the total inadequacy of your messages informing that an item has been pulled and you even dare insisting that, for you, the TOS is pretty clear and that you even have put a lot of effort in it!!!!!! You don't think members want longer TOS???? But, I am asking you, have you been reading and listening to all what has been said so far, i.e. that we DO need TOS which means something? We are all reday to read a few lines more, it's not a big problem, as long as thiose lines help understanding better what is allowed and what is not. I am also amazed (positively) by the patience of X-perimentalman who guided you through the issue once more. He really deserves a special mention, I am not being sarcastic.

Wow, my first forum post! I kinda wanderd in here by accident and got stuck. It was just way too enthralling. Quick question- if this is supposed to be a "Family Oriented" site, then why are there so many posts of naked people? Not that I mind, but this does not bring to mind "family oriented." Yes, yes...you say hat we can turn off the Nudity by clickig on the check box. Then wouldn't the image in question be filtered out anyways? Problem solved! Granted I haven't seen the image in question, so I may be completely off-base. But it does not say "Keep images family oriented" in the TOS. If the reason for the image being pulled was because it was not "family oriented" then you mods have a lot more work to do- there are tons more images that need to go. I'm not trying to make anyone mad at me (grin) but the TOS is there for a reason and if it needs to be changed, well then change it. Or maybe just come up with a better choice of words when pulling images. :) That's my two cents. I'm going to bed now. Good night, and good luck resolving this issue!

I don't know how else to explain this. MichelleA did give reasons for the removal, the model was playing with her breasts. If you want my blunt explanation - the picture looked like a porn site ad. We don't want this site to become another Renderotica. We also don't want to become another Disney, either. We're trying to be somewhere in the middle.

As Spike pointed out earlier, even if you post an image that's against TOS, you are simply IMed the reason the image was pulled. No action is taken unless you keep violating the TOS deliberately, such as posting kiddie porn, reposting the same yanked image over and over, etc.

Here's the general process for a disputed image:

Mod either sees an image they feel is over the TOS or receives a complaint about an image and tags it. (I don't know which it was for gilo25, and I don't care. The net effect is the image is brought up for a vote.)
Unless the image is seriously over TOS, such as kiddie porn which is immediately yanked, the image is posted for the Mods to look at and take a vote on.
The Mods vote, giving their reason(s) why the image should stay or go. Majority rules. (We don't always agree, but not even the Supreme Court has unanimous rulings and they're trained in legal interpretations.)
If the image is deemed okay (and, yes, this does happen sometimes) then it stays. If someone had complained about the image, they're informed that the image has been deemed suitable for the community. If the image is considered against TOS, then the Mod who asked for the vote IMs the poster and give the reason(s) why the image was pulled. Depending on the Mod, it might be a short summary or a longer description. The member is free to contact the Mod for a more detailed description.

If the artist disagrees, they can go to the Admins or even the site owners to argue their case.

The replies in the gilo25 thread weren't meant as "sod off" responses to people asking legitimate questions to better stand the TOS, but if you enter a heated argument, you may get some strained responses. Instead of telling you to shut up, despite a very provocative thread title, we've asked you and everyone else for suggestions on how to improve the TOS. I don't think that's treating members badly.

Consider how the thread went:

gilo25 posts that we're censoring his pictures because one was removed. As he quotes MichelleA:

One of your gallery items has been removed by the staff at Renderosity.com for the following reason:
We received complaints on this image and after a lot of deliberation it was decided that this image is unsuitable for the gallery. It has an overt sexual feeling running thru it. In general images of breast touching haven't been allowed either, so that is another reason for it's removal. As this is supposed to be a PG-13 site something like this is probably better suited towards sites like Renderotica. I'm sorry for any problems this may cause you.

The message he quotes does spell out why the image was rejected. He also tries to post the image that he had already been told was rejected from the site. He also accuses MichelleA and the rest of us of being bigots in the first post:

If you continue with this arbitrary acts of censorship I will have no choice but to leave this site. I have no problems with that, as there are plenty of other sites where one can post without suffering the rigors of such bigot censorship, but I would like to know first what the Renderosity community thinks.

AgentSmith pulls the image. If it's not allowed in the gallery, it's not allowed in the forums, either.
gilo25 likens AgentSmith to the KGB and insults the Mods of Renderosity in general:

One more element here for you all to judge upon: I was trying to upload the incriminated image to give everybody a chance to judge, but it was being removed as fast as light by agentsmith, whose name reminds very much of a KGB spy. Looks like this is the climate we live in, here at Renderosity.

This was partially in response to AgentSmith's IM to gilo25, where he put in a smiley face in an attempt to soften his message. This was taken the wrong way by gilo25 and AgentSmith did apologize to him for that misunderstanding privately, but not only was the apology not accepted, but the comments against AgentSmith continued.

At this point, AgentSmith and MichelleA both pop in and again say that this is nothing against gilo25 but the image does not fit the site. They also state that we try to be consistant, but with borderline pictures, it is a case-by-case basis. (I also pop in as well to try to explain the decision as my name was indirectly dragged into it with an incorrect reference to a Poser thread.)
There's some general arguing as to what pictures have breast touching and which don't. Other members join in.
gilo25 likens AgentSmith and Renderosity to a military junta:

Kevin, I am afraid you are talking like a spokesman of a military junta here: 'And your image was so deemed by the moderator team. We each looked at it and came to a decision. The image is unsuitable for this site.' Sounds like when they arrested Aung Sang Sukyi for her own good... mmhhh.. And, as it is often the case for the statements of military juntas, your words are not supported by facts.

At this point, the Mods start getting annoyed, including myself, being accused of having no regard for any members of Renderosity and of persecuting gilo25. Until that point, all the Mod responses have been polite but firm. After the last accusation, the responses get blunt. Even though we've been accused of being on par with the Burmese militia, at no time do we start insulting gilo25 back.
MichelleA actually did give reasons that the picture was deleted. gilo25 posted it in the initial post of the thread. gilo25 didn't like the reason but gilo25 did not respond back to MichelleA's message for further clarification. (Or if he did reply, she never received it. She asked the other Mods if they'd been contacted by gilo25 because she never had, that's how I know she hadn't been contacted. I have no reason to believe she'd lie on this.)
With all the insults that gilo25 tossed at us, I personally feel that "stiring things up" isn't that far from the truth. He starts off swinging, threatening to pack up and leave and calling us bigot censors. If he'd simply posted something like, "Could you please clarify the TOS?" or "Could you please explain why my image was removed?" and given us time to answer, then it would have been something entirely different.

I hope this better clarifies things.

Crescent
Renderosity Moderator
(Writers' Forum. Does it show?)

gilo25, How many times do I have to ask you? If you are unwilling to work with me on this, this matter is closed. The bottem line is the image was pulled. We sent you a IM on why. You did not like what you heard and reposted the image. You broke the site rules by reposting a image that you were told not to, you also broke the rules by calling the mod team "bigots", "KGB spys" and "military juntas". You are pushing your luck here. The next attact on any member (including mods and admin) will get you banned from this site. IS THAT CLEAR? As for the rest of the thread,.... We will bring this to the table in the mod forum for review...

You can't call it work if you love it... Zen Tambour

Your message doesn't explain anything. The issue is: I am a disgruntled customer, end user, whatever you want to call me (yes we are customers, we are not being made a favour by being allowed to post here, it is the other way around). The initial removal message which informed me why the image was pulled did say why it was pulled but the problem is that a correspondnce in the TOS is nowhere to be found. The messaqge is inadequate because it doesn't say 'the image was pulled based on the TOS which says...'; as a matter of fact teh message can't possibly say that because there is no correlation between the current TOS and the reasons indicated in the message for the image to be pulled. Your interpretation of the TOS is just an interpretation, because if you read the TOS, it does not contain adequate elements that would tell the 'poster' that the image he/she is about to post is unsuitable. The TOS talks about sexual acts etc, but not about touching of breasts. Moreover, there are a lot of inconsistency because the site is full of sexual images which has no more right than the one at issue to reamain, based on the TOS. Let's not forget also about the Chair of Juda which you will agree is not a feature odf a family oriented site. We are therefore asking for a revision of the TOS, and if you were receptive enough you would have already agreed to it. That's all. Here is the message I sent in reply to teh message I was sent when the image was pulled out: 20/06/03 10:08 AM To: michellea@renderosity.com cc: Subject: Re: Your image 'Sultry' was removed from our galleries. Dear Michelle, I am truly astonsihed by this decision. As you know my nudes are not sexually aggressive, as all the comments testify. If someone saw it and found it 'unsuitable', it means that he/she did not have the access to nudity turned off. So it means that he/she is not disturbed by nudity. If he/she actually forwarded a complaint for an image like this, which has no explicit sexual content (the nipple is NOT being touched, there is just an allusive gesture), I think this person has a problem with his/her own percption of what is sexually disturbing. I don't think this should influence the decision of Renderosity, which in any case doesn't cause any particular problem to me, as I will simply switch to other sites. But it will cause a problem to Renderosity itself as for the pruderie of one viewer, hundreds of viewers will be disappointed not to see a certain type of images any more, which certainly gathered the highest number of views per day. But it seems that Rendersosity has made its choice. I would still like to know where it says that the image at issue is not suitable, while all the rest of images is. All the best G' I never got a reply to this. You are now saying you didn't get it. Fine, but this doesn't allow you to insinuate that it was my intention to stir up a stink. I therefore still insist on an apology from Renderosity as requested in points 1 to 4 in post 9 above. Also, since the situation is getting more serious, I would like to invite Renderosity to choose one person who will be the official represenatative of the site. I will not reply to messages of the umpteen mod who is chipping in without me knowing whether he is representing the site or him/herself.

I am pushing my luck? Who is threatening who here? Why do you assume you are authorized to assume a tne like this? I did not break any rules by trying to re-post the image in the Forum, I was in absolute good faith trying to discuss something openly. Or is this a new interpretation of the TOS?

Oh for cryin' out loud.....I understand the TOS, and it doesnt have to be numbered 1-1000 etc. etc. for me to figure out what is allowed, and what isn't. * (the nipple is NOT being touched, there is just an allusive gesture),* This statement tells me IMO, that the intent was there..and from reading in the other thread, the 'poser' had a certain degree of satisfaction showing on her face...this would {to me} be one of the reasons the image was pulled..and I would say that this part of TOS: * Additionally, any post or image can be removed at the discretion of staff if it is deemed unsuitable for this community.* would just about cover that. As for waiting for an apology...with all the insults being thrown at the mods/admins...I wouldnt hold my breath... sorry, just had to post my 2 c's worth again...:D ~Jani

~Jani

Renderosity Community Admin
---------------------------------------

If somebody was insulted that was me (accused of trying to unlawfully re-upload the image, stirring up stinks) and the otehrs who were told to basically mind their own businesses. Plus the action of locking the previous thread. Let's not forget the title of the thread we are writing on now, which is more than deserved. So whatever I said doesn't seem so far fetched to me and certainly was not as insulting as what myself, illusions and the others got from the mods. I am not holding my breath (;)), I can assure you I am breathing very nicely throughout this thing. But I insist on a apology for a very hasty and undeserved treatment.

"yes we are customers, we are not being made a favour by being allowed to post here, it is the other way around" You must live in la-la land. I've seen a fair few similar threads but this these take the biscuit. Dude, try this. Take up a few memberships with some of the major art sites. Try posting some risque stuff and when it's rejected, which it will be, carry on about it like you are doing here. In 12 hours time, when every one of these sites has banned you without bothering to canvas your opinion or spend hours politely justifying their decisions, I reckon you'll have a sunny new appreciation for the way things work around here. But Illusions is right, this thread was - as I understand - in order to make suggestions about the image removal problem. So, here're my suggestions:- Stick a line to the TOS, just after the list of no-nos, stating something along the lines of "In addition, images that are deemed to be generally offensive, excessively adult in nature, or simply not compatible in theme with a public site, as defined by the admins, will, at the complete discretion of the admins, be immediatley removed and a full reason provided to the artist at the point of removal." What I do NOT want to see is the TOS stretching for pages and pages detailing every possibility that might arise. Forget dodgy images, it would make obscene reading in itself. I mean, hell, does the law state that it's an offense to be "lewd in a public place" or does it state "it's an offense in a public place to... get your dick out, jack off into a jar, stick a flag in your ass and do a handstand..." and ten thousand other possibilities? Of course not, because any right-minded person can make an intelligent interpretation of the word "lewd". Please don't get the idea that I'm advocating that nobody should complain about anything, because obviously that's nonsense. I've complained about loads of things and no doubt I'll continue to do so. But I try to keep a sense of perspective and not get an inflated idea of my importance to this whole community. When I'm getting something for free I tend to be a little more generous in my opinions than if I were paying for a service. And I try not to make statements like AgentSmith being in the KGB. I mean, that's crazy... ...his hair's too long ;)

Some other suggestions: Since this is primarily a "graphic arts" community, and not a "photographer's community", remove the Photograhy Gallery. That way, any argument over inappropriate images can be reduced to a "but it's only a mesh made up of 1's ans 0's". The bottom line has been stated above (and in numerous other threads): "Any image can be removed at the sole disretion of the admins." If you post a "G" rated image, you have nothing to worry about. If you post a "risque" image, you run the risk of having your image removed. I don't think it gets any simpler than that. If you want to make images that are "on the egde", then you have to be willing to accept the fact that it may be removed. And I don't get the idea of this site trying to be "family oriented". On the one side, mods will remove images that are deemed too "risque" from galleries that are only accessible to members. Yet, on the top of every page are banner ads... some of which are very racy (non-nude, but images of lingerie, seductive poses and textures and so on). Yes, it's "art" and yes the items are for computer characters, but I know I wouldn't want my kids to see banners like that.

It seems like the site has improved with the rules which currently are in place, those rules do place more of a burden on the admin/mods to monitor and or lock threads but I think the result is more professional in the long run. Has there always been a debate about where the "adult" versus "family" rating on images should be set...YES. Even the Supreme Court of the United States admits that pornographic is subjectively defined, even the "no redeeming social value" is subjective...but as was further noted by a Justice "I know it when I see it". Now I don't know about everyone else but if one has children it is a bit easier to find a subjective definition of family orientated. Renderotica has been set up to bridge the gap so to speak in terms of a subjective standard, there you can post what is not acceptable under the TOS here. So I am always amazed at the insistance that an image be posted here...what's the point? Why must a "family orientated" site accept sexually explicit images or be under attack?...the censorship idea is a red herring...the site rules are clear on the point of who is going to be subjective about the content of an image....what part of NO needs to be explained the N or the O? The image can be posted at any other site that accepts that type of artwork, the artwork can be re-worked to fit within the site rules...again the TOS are the equivalent of notice. For one I am all for debate, but this is a site where the majority of artists work hard not to be lumped in with "porn" and although some fantasy art is risque by a pure "family" rating, it remains subjectively within the rules of this site....

I totally agree with the suggestions of illusions above in post 37. That would solve the problem or at least improve significantly the situation. As far as the observation 'You must live in la-la land. I've seen a fair few similar threads but this these take the biscuit. Dude, try this. Take up a few memberships with some of the major art sites. Try posting some risque stuff and when it's rejected, which it will be, carry on about it like you are doing here. In 12 hours time, when every one of these sites has banned you without bothering to canvas your opinion or spend hours politely justifying their decisions, I reckon you'll have a sunny new appreciation for the way things work around here.', I would like to say that I do have a few memberships with some other sites and, first of all, there is no 'risque' stuff there, everything goes (and they are not porn sites, as a matter of fact they have much less vulgar stuff than Renderotica); and if there are limits, those are spelt out clearly, in a way which resembles very much the suggestions put forward by illusions. So if you are banned, there are reasons. Therefore I am afraid I won't have any 'sunny apprecaiation for the way things work here', on the contrary, as this is the only site IO found where mods tell you to shut up, lock threads, insult members by accusing them to stir up stinks, etc etc. In this respect, I am still waiting to be contacted on the issues I raised in my post above.

Sorry, I meant 'I found'..

gilo25, I am taking this to IM. This is not a public matter.

You can't call it work if you love it... Zen Tambour

Again, what is a "Family site"?, if nudity, breast, nipples, etc are not allowed in a family site, then I conclude that museums and art galleries are places where a "Family" never can visit!, imagine what a child or grandmother can find there! I never had a problem with my pictures in any site, but I have the right to choose which image I want to see and which do not, and NOT that someone else decide what I am allowed to see!!!!

Stupidity also evolves!

Your right, you do have the right to view any image you like. The ones that are not allowed on this site can be viewed at othere sites.. When Members join Renderosity thay read this: "Due to the content and issues discussed in our forums, we ask that anyone under the age of 15 receive written permission from a parent before joining our service." So think of the site as PG-15..

You can't call it work if you love it... Zen Tambour

othere = other

You can't call it work if you love it... Zen Tambour

"I can't help but wonder how many under 15 year olds there are here, and how many of their parents have mailed written permission." More than you think... But most were faxed in.. "PG-15...I don't know of many parents that permit their 15 year olds to view bondage, fetish, or sexually oriented material such as those found in the Marketplace. The site can't have it both ways...if you can't see it in the galleries...you can't sell it in the Marketplace! " This is why we made some of the merchants change there banners... Remember all the stink that caused? Ya see, We try and clean it up from one end and get hammered. We try and clean it up at the other and get hammered. It's funny that no matter what I tell you guys, some of you just want to drag it on.... Seems some of you realy don't care about the issue at all, but only care about winning the fight. In my mind, there in no fight to be won. I said that I was going to bring this issue to the table, and I have. We are talking about ways to improve how we deal with letting members know why we remove images..

You can't call it work if you love it... Zen Tambour

Can a "child" 15 years old boy something at the market place? - If a 12 years old child want to view something, he will do it, no mater if the parents permit or do not. If he want to view porn pictures, he will find a way and find a correct link, parent can put firewall, he will break them, in most cases the child/teens are very much knowledge about computers/internet that their parents have. It is only an illusion of the parents that are controling something. The story was the same for my father, for me, for my sons, and so on. Have you forgotten when you were a child or teen what you have done and how you find a way for doing it? - Someone has decided that I are not allowed to see Gilo's image. It wasn't me that decided if I want to see it, so I lost my decision right! Probably, if I had the right to decide, I would never seen the image because I seldom visit the photo gallery. - The problematic image was within the TOS and was removed due the subjective opinion of what is suitable for a "Family Site", but what is a family site was never been defined, only the TOS, and the image was within the TOS! - Yes, all the problem is about NUDITY! In all the cases with conflicting pictures removed, nudity was involved! With few exceptions, No nudity-No complains-No pictures removed!

Stupidity also evolves!

The matter about this image in not open for debate. The change of our TOS is. "- Someone has decided that I are not allowed to see Gilo's image. It wasn't me that decided if I want to see it, so I lost my decision right!" Wrong! Help yourself! If you want to see his work, please go to another site. It's up to you, we are not keeping you from it. Help yourself, have a good time, enjoy your stay. I Spike, ruler of all "porn like" images give you permission to go to another site and freely view as much "porn like" images as you want.

You can't call it work if you love it... Zen Tambour

BTW "Can a "child" 15 years old boy something at the market place?" Yes he can. Paypal!

You can't call it work if you love it... Zen Tambour

Oops, I retract the paypal part. But a minor can get a cretit card here in the US as long as the parents agree to the terms.

You can't call it work if you love it... Zen Tambour

And they can send in a money order too...

You can't call it work if you love it... Zen Tambour

So if a "child" has a credit card, there's any difference if he buys something here, at another site or at some porn site?

Stupidity also evolves!

a child under 18 is not liable for debts incurred. so, any fool that gives him/her a credit card is doing so at their own risk. jack d. kamerar did not set up renderotica as a "bridge" between what is acceptable at renderosity and "adult" art. he was pissed and set off to make his own reality. i was here for years before this was a "family" site. it used to be an "artist" site. spike...you turn me on, so, when you utter the lil phrase "porn like"....yoowza, yoowza, yoowsz.....can you whisper it? but, sadly, you seem even more excited when you proudly announce such phrases as....sing it to me honey, with feeling....PAYPAL....and MONEY ORDER. not all transparencies are in maps for renders. sigh. artists we all are, right? unnnn hunnnnhhhhh... spike..you were decent at modelling, more than decent. i am shocked at this turn.

If a 12 years old child want to view something, he will do it, no mater if the parents permit or do not.
If he want to view porn pictures, he will find a way and find a correct link, parent can put firewall, he will break them, in most cases the child/teens are very much knowledge about computers/internet that their parents have.
It is only an illusion of the parents that are controling something. The story was the same for my father, for me, for my sons, and so on.
Have you forgotten when you were a child or teen what you have done and how you find a way for doing it?

Renderosity is practicing caution by means of the TOS with regards to underage use. But what the child does at home is beyond Renderosity's capacity to protect the child from such actions. IMHO, it is the responsibility of the parent or the guardian.

JohnRender - deleting the Photography section in Renderosity will not solve the problem. Moreover, if you say that this is a graphic artist's community then maybe we should not allow purely hand-drawn work here either?

I have been following this thread in silence, and I think this has gone for way too long already. As a moderator, I am insulted by the sweeping generalizations made by some entities, and I think it is unfair to say that my hardworking co-moderator is 'lying through her teeth'. What will Michelle A. possibly gain from doing that? We certainly do not draw gratification from deleting images and deliberating over fuzzy issues.

gilo25, you have been given four (possibly more) different explanations on why your image was removed. I don't see why you need a detailed explanation anymore. It is unfortunate that you are disgruntled with the incident but I don't think an apology is in order either. The Renderosity team is simply doing their job.

I'd appreciate it if all business is conducted in a very cooperative fashion. We must help each other to solve the problem. I have heard your side and I have given mine.

I do not like to end things sourly. But if you are not happy with the way things are running here, I believe there are other options, and those options are all up to you.

Thank you for your time.

starshuffler
Renderosity Photography Moderator

Also, before I forget-- we appreciate the suggestions given here. Thanks,people. :-)

Spike, thanks for tabling the ideas to the mods forum, that at least is a good start.

Even though I am able to grasp the intellectual arguments about the TOS, I am unable to feel the logic that deems one thing "Porn" and another "Artistic" as arbitrarily applied here. I accept Renderosity's right to remove what they will. I am troubled by the prejudices and inconsistencies displayed. Not complaining...just musing!

illusions, in regard to your statement:
"Few of us have seen the image...and if you haven't seen it, you can't judge it's suitability. The purpose of this thread was to make suggestions concerning the process by which an image is removed, a members options when an image has been removed, and the adequacy of the TOS to define what is suitable."
In another thread regarding this issue I tried to explain some points to consider when dealing with "borderline" images. Here is the gist of what I said:

The gestalt of any given image is not simply the end product of one individual compositional element such as a specific body part, but is the sum of all the elements within the image. In figure studies, this includes (but is not limited to) the stance of the body, the facial expression, the way the limbs are held, the implied emotions and intent. A good photographer (in the example of photography) can impart these feelings from the way they compose, light and position their subject matter. These elements cannot always be broken down into specific rules or delineations, but need to be taken into consideration when viewed as a whole, in context...which is why we have to occasionally have to discuss & vote on some images. This is not about adequacy of the TOS...no set of written definitions or rules can cover every conceivable circumstance. Some of these things can not by their very nature of needing to be assessed in a wholistic context, be clearly defined by words (ie a specific TOS wording)

Illusions, also regarding your statement: "Many of us gave you ideas for handling image removal. Neither you nor any of the other Mods/Admins have acknowledge any of them or commented on them!"

I also replied in the other thread I mentioned earlier:
"gilo25 Some aspects of your email suggestions do have merit. I truly hope that both Renderosity and yourself can learn from these exchanges."

At no time did I receive any response from gilo25 that he had read, aknowledged or in anyway understood what I was communicating, or that I was even making a genuine and sincere effort to explain things. This is a pattern he seems to have followed with the other mods and Spike as well.

For someone accusing Renderosity and it's administration and moderators of poor communication skills I find this very strange. To communicate effectively one must also listen for any effective exchange. It seems to me that Renderosity have been listening and answering all along, hence the multitude of replies. gilo25 however does not seem to have shown Renderosity and it's representatives the same courtesy. He refuses to accept the answers and explanations given to him. He has been insulting, rude and then he demands apologies from Renderosity.

If I insulted, and continually haraunged other members (yes mods are members too), even to the point of accusing them of "lying through their teeth" with NO evidence...and comparing them to military juntas and dictators, If I ignored everything else that was explained to me because I wasn't told exactly what I wanted to hear, do you think others would regard my behaviour as reasonable?
In reference to the title of the thread originally coined by illusions, this is a "nice" abuse of freedom of speech and tolerance within this community by gilo25 I would say
P.S. Brendan, I too am sometimes troubled by the prejudices and inconsistencies displayed by some members when dealing with and voicing their greivances regarding this site...it seems to me these things surely work both ways? As you said, I'm not complaining, I too, am musing... ;-)> PunkClown (2D Graphics Forum Moderator)

Yes starshuffler I have been given 4 different explanations, and a lot of stories that did not satisfy me. That's the problem: I want one person to talk to me as representative of Renderosity. Your chipping in after reading in silence doesn't help. I have put down some requests and I would like an answer. Nobody has formally addressed the fact that I did raise this in private 'before stirring up a stink'. Therefore I reiterate here all I said before, including the unprofessional ways of the mods, at times. Still waiting.. And I would also like somebody to give an explanation on how you reconcile the market place with your TOS. That's a public issue, not a private one, Spike. Brendan, I love your musing.. ;)

P.S. Brendan, the woman in the example you posted looks like she is trying to tune in a radio station rather than being risque! :-)>

gilo25 re: "I want one person to talk to me as representative of Renderosity" ~ Spike has already offered to do that, via email or IM...why haven't you taken him up on that offer?

;) Punkclown, you are right, looks like she is tuning a radio.. but that's the problem, where do you draw the line?.. anyway, we talked about that, I don't want to 'stir any more stink'. What I want to say is that I did appreciate your effort. As a matter of fact I was referring to your sentence 'gilo25 Some aspects of your email suggestions do have merit. I truly hope that both Renderosity and yourself can learn from these exchanges" when I said that I was about to calm thing down, as I saw an effort from the mods (I was referring to you) to calm things down. It seems that you don't read either, have a look above! But the problem is that then Michelle came up with that very unfortunate comment saying that it was my intention to stir up a stink because had I bothered to contact you in private I would have received an explanation. How many times do I have to say that I did bother to contact you, I even pasted my email above. But I never got a reply. Maybe you guys did not receive it, but this doesn't authorize you to depict me as a trouble maker. it is unprofessional. The fact that I was really astonished by your censorship and compared you to a military junta doesn't allow you to insult me back, as I did somehow recognize somewhere above that my comparison was not on. But you never admitted that Michell'es words were inappropriate as well. And they were indeed, together with the locking of thread of Spike and other oobservations from the mod.And I repeat it here that she lied, as far as I know, because nobody officially told me that she never received my email. And this leads me to my last point. Guys, it's better if one of you makes the talks because by intervening at random, you don't make yourself a favour: you are just destroying each other's work. get your acts together and we are going to solve this, coz neither illusions, xperimental man or myself are here to stir up stinks. have you ever thought it is maybe because we like this site????? Of course, if you continue like this, obviously we do lose our patience. At least I do.

I haven't got any email yet. let me check. But it's early morning here, and I had some good time last night with my models tuning radios.. Can I have breakfast first?

gilo25, please check your IM's. X-perimentalman Thanks! We are working on it...

You can't call it work if you love it... Zen Tambour

Thank you for aknowledging my efforts. I would also really appreciate it if you actually addressed my explanation of judging the appropriateness of images that may not be completely covered by the TOS in the context of their whole gestalt:
"These elements cannot always be broken down into specific rules or delineations, but need to be taken into consideration when viewed as a whole, in context...which is why we have to occasionally have to discuss & vote on some images. This is not about adequacy of the TOS...no set of written definitions or rules can cover every conceivable circumstance or image. Some of these things can not by their very nature of needing to be assessed in a wholistic context, be clearly defined by words (ie a specific TOS wording)"
~ This after all, is directly addressing what seems to have been one of your major concerns...that you wanted to know on what criterion your image was deleted.
I have also have a major problem with this statement you have made: "And I repeat it here that she lied, as far as I know, because nobody officially told me that she never received my email" how on earth does that justify you calling someone a liar? "As far as you know" ~ as far as you know, you could be completely wrong (ie the email was not have been delivered for whatever reason), and therefore you are making statements based on erroneous information. Just because "no-one told you", how does that make someone a liar? Publicly accusing someone of lying is very serious and damaging. I personally think you should apologise to Michelle, seriously.

thisis for Crescent's message above. I have to comment on this message of Crescent (which is public); I hope I will be allowed, because it seems now that I should talk only in private; but since this is public, i would like to reply in public. I'll paste my comments in capitals, juts to differentiate them from teh text of Crescent, not to signify shouting. MichelleA did give reasons for the removal, the model was playing with her breasts. CORRECT, SHE DID GAVE EXPLANATIONS, BUT THESE DO NOT HAVE A CORRESPONDENT IN THE TOS. ALSO THE IMAGE OF BRANDAN IS ABOUT TOUCHING OF BREASTS. BUT MINE HAS BEEN DELETED, THIS ONE NO. OF COURSE THERE IS A DIFFERENT FEEL TO THE 2 PICS, I AGREE. BUT THIS ONLY IMPLIES THAT THE TOS THE WAY IT IS NOW IS NOT ADEQUATE. I JUST INVITED AN EXPLANATION ON THIS. If you want my blunt explanation - the picture looked like a porn site ad. We don't want this site to become another Renderotica. THAT'S YOUR PERSONAL OPINION, FINE. YOU DON'T WANT TO THIS SITE TO BECOME ANOTHER RENDEROTICA? HOW ABOUT THE MARKETPLACE? IS THAT FAMILY ORIENTED? We also don't want to become another Disney, either. We're trying to be somewhere in the middle. As Spike pointed out earlier, even if you post an image that's against TOS, you are simply IMed the reason the image was pulled. I WAS EMAILED, NOT IM'ED No action is taken unless you keep violating the TOS deliberately, such as posting kiddie porn, reposting the same yanked image over and over, etc. I WAS NOT TRYING TO BE CLEVER, I THOUGHT IN ALL GOOD FAITH THAT THE IMAGE WAS BANNED FROM THE GALLERIES, BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS ALLOWED TO DISCUSS IT HERE. I AM AWFULLY SORRY ABOUT THAT, BUT I DON'T THINK I COMMITTED A CAPITAL CRIME. I SIGNED UP 3 MONTSH AGO, I DON'T KNOW ALL THE RULES AND CERTAINLY THE RULE THAT IF SOMETHING IS REMOVED FROM THE GALLERIES IT CANNOT BE DISCUSSED HERE IS NOWHERE TO BE FOUND. SOME MORE FOOD FOR THOUGHT. Here's the general process for a disputed image: 1) Mod either sees an image they feel is over the TOS or receives a complaint about an image and tags it. (I don't know which it was for gilo25, and I don't care. The net effect is the image is brought up for a vote.) 2) Unless the image is seriously over TOS, such as kiddie porn which is immediately yanked, the image is posted for the Mods to look at and take a vote on. 3) The Mods vote, giving their reason(s) why the image should stay or go. Majority rules. (We don't always agree, but not even the Supreme Court has unanimous rulings and they're trained in legal interpretations.) 4) If the image is deemed okay (and, yes, this does happen sometimes) then it stays. If someone had complained about the image, they're informed that the image has been deemed suitable for the community. If the image is considered against TOS, then the Mod who asked for the vote IMs the poster and give the reason(s) why the image was pulled. Depending on the Mod, it might be a short summary or a longer description. The member is free to contact the Mod for a more detailed description. WHICH I DID. YOU ALL SAW THE EMAIL I SENT TO MICHELLE. If the artist disagrees, they can go to the Admins or even the site owners to argue their case. IN FACT I DID SEND A MESSAGE TO MICHELLE WHICH AS FAR AS I KNOW WAS IGNORED. BUT I WAS NOT ARGUING AGAINST ITS REMOVAL: I WAS ASTONISHED THAT TEHRE WAS NOTHING IN THE TOS TO GUIDE ME AND WANTED AN EXPLANATION AS FAR AS THE DELETION OF THAT PIC WAS CONCERNED. The replies in the gilo25 thread weren't meant as "sod off" responses to people asking legitimate questions to better stand the TOS, BUT THAT'S THE WAY THEY CAME ACROSS.LOCKING THE THREAD ALSO SIGNIFIES 'SOD OFF' TO ME. but if you enter a heated argument, you may get some strained responses. Instead of telling you to shut up, despite a very provocative thread title, THERE WAS NOTHING PROVOCATIVE IN MY TITLE. WHAT'S PROVOCATIVE ABOUT 'CENSORSHIP'? OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD? THERE IS NOTHING PROVOCATIVE HERE EITHER. JUST A FACT.we've asked you and everyone else for suggestions on how to improve the TOS. I don't think that's treating members badly. NO IT'S NOT AND I (AND EVERYBODY) APPRECIATED THAT. Consider how the thread went: 1) gilo25 posts that we're censoring his pictures because one was removed. TRUE. ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT? As he quotes MichelleA: One of your gallery items has been removed by the staff at Renderosity.com for the following reason: We received complaints on this image and after a lot of deliberation it was decided that this image is unsuitable for the gallery. It has an overt sexual feeling running thru it. In general images of breast touching haven't been allowed either, so that is another reason for it's removal. As this is supposed to be a PG-13 site something like this is probably better suited towards sites like Renderotica. I'm sorry for any problems this may cause you. The message he quotes does spell out why the image was rejected.CORRECT. BUT THE TOS SHOWS NO CORRESPEONDNCE WITH THE REASONS BROUGHT FORWARD. HENCE THE PROBLEM AND TEH REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION. WHICH WAS NEVER ANSWERED. He also tries to post the image that he had already been told was rejected from the site. IN ABSOLUTE GOOD FAITH. I THOUGHT IT CAN BE DISCUSSED, AS I SAID BEFORE. He also accuses MichelleA and the rest of us of being bigots in the first post: If you continue with this arbitrary acts of censorship I will have no choice but to leave this site. I have no problems with that, as there are plenty of other sites where one can post without suffering the rigors of such bigot censorship, but I would like to know first what the Renderosity community thinks. YES, BECAUSE I WAS GETTING ANNOYED BY THE FACT THAT MY PRIVATE REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATIONS WENT IGNORED. 2) AgentSmith pulls the image. If it's not allowed in the gallery, it's not allowed in the forums, either. GOOD TO KNOW. 3) gilo25 likens AgentSmith to the KGB and insults the Mods of Renderosity in general: One more element here for you all to judge upon: I was trying to upload the incriminated image to give everybody a chance to judge, but it was being removed as fast as light by agentsmith, whose name reminds very much of a KGB spy. Looks like this is the climate we live in, here at Renderosity. YES, AFTER HAVING WRITTEN AND BEING IGNORED, AFTER TRYING TO GET A DEBATE GOING, SEEING THE SARCASM OF AGENTSMITH FRANKLY GOT ME AS MUCH ANGRY AS MICHELLE'S ACCUSATION OF STIRRING UP A STINK. BUT I DID SAY ABOVE THAT I DID NEVER MEAN TO LIKEN YOUR ACT TO AN ACT OF MURDER. This was partially in response to AgentSmith's IM to gilo25, where he put in a smiley face in an attempt to soften his message. This was taken the wrong way by gilo25 and AgentSmith did apologize to him for that misunderstanding privately, but not only was the apology not accepted, but the comments against AgentSmith continued. I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANYTHING ELSE AGAINST HIM. IN ANY CASE YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT MY SITUATION WAS NOT THAT 'GLORIOUS', CONSIDERING HOW I HAD BEEN TREATED FOR QUITE SOME TIME, I.E. FROM TOTAL NEGLECT TO SARCASM. THAT'S WHAT I FELT, AND NOBODY CAN TAKE THAT AWAY FROM ME. EXACTLY LIKE YOU FELT INSULTED BY THE COMPARISON WITH THE POLICE (WHICH BY THE WAY SPIKE HIMSELF HAS JUST BROUGHT UP, IN ANOTHER VERY UNFORTUNATE IM IN WHICH HE WAS IN REALITY SUPPOSED TO 'TALK' TO ME, A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE MODS AND POLICE. I AM PARAPHARSING HIM: HE SAID 'WHY DID YOU POST THE IMAGE AGAIN? WOULD YOU SPEED OFF WITH YOUR CAR IF YOU HAVE JUST BEEN GIVEN A FINE FOR SPEEDING? SO WHO IS TALKING ABOUT POLICE NOW? BUT I DON'T WANT TO DWELL ON THAT COZ I AM GOING TO BE CURSED, KNOWING HOW THINGS GO. ...) I FELT INSULTED BY BEING NEGLECTED AND LAUGHED AT. 4) At this point, AgentSmith and MichelleA both pop in and again say that this is nothing against gilo25 but the image does not fit the site.FINE, BUT WHERE IS THE EXPLANATION OF THE CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE TOS? They also state that we try to be consistant, BUT YOU ARE NOT, AS THE MARKETPLACE SHOWS. OF COURSE NOBODY IS PERFECT BUT SUCH BLATANT CONTRADICTION SHOULD BE EASILY AVOIDED. but with borderline pictures, it is a case-by-case basis. (I also pop in as well to try to explain the decision as my name was indirectly dragged into it with an incorrect reference to a Poser thread.) 5) There's some general arguing as to what pictures have breast touching and which don't. Other members join in. 6) gilo25 likens AgentSmith and Renderosity to a military junta: Kevin, I am afraid you are talking like a spokesman of a military junta here: 'And your image was so deemed by the moderator team. We each looked at it and came to a decision. The image is unsuitable for this site.' Sounds like when they arrested Aung Sang Sukyi for her own good... mmhhh.. And, as it is often the case for the statements of military juntas, your words are not supported by facts. TRUE, I ALREADY SAID WHY I SAID THIS. 7) At this point, the Mods start getting annoyed, POOR THINGS. I HAD BEEN ANNOYED FOR A COUPLE OF DAYS ALREADY. AND CORRECTLY SO. including myself, being accused of having no regard for any members of Renderosity and of persecuting gilo25. THAT'S WHAT IT SEEMED, I AM AFRAID. Until that point, all the Mod responses have been polite but firm. After the last accusation, the responses get blunt. Even though we've been accused of being on par with the Burmese militia, at no time do we start insulting gilo25 back. REALLY? WHAT ABOUT THE STIRRING UP STINK? WAS THAT NOT A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT OF GETTING OFFENSIVE? 8) MichelleA actually did give reasons that the picture was deleted. YES WE KNOW THAT. gilo25 posted it in the initial post of the thread. gilo25 didn't like the reason but gilo25 did not respond back to MichelleA's message for further clarification. YES I DID. I PASTED THE MESSAGE ABOVE. (Or if he did reply, she never received it. VERY UNFORTUNATE, BUT WHAT CAN I DO ABOUT IT? IN ANY CASE YOU CAN'T PROVE SHE DIDN'T GET IT AS I CAN'T PROVE I SENT IT. WE ARE EVEN. MY WORD AGAINST YOURS. She asked the other Mods if they'd been contacted by gilo25 because she never had, THE MESSAGE IS THERE FOR YOU TO READ. that's how I know she hadn't been contacted. SHE THAD. AND THISLAST STATEMENT OF YOURS IS ALL TO BE PROVEN. SINCE YOU CAN'T, THE FACT REMAINS THAT I FELT INSULTED BY THE WORDS OF MICHELLE. YOU CAN'T DENY THAT. have no reason to believe she'd lie on this.)I DO, BUT THAT'S ANOTHER STORY. AGAIN YOUR WORD AGAISNT MINE. 9) With all the insults that gilo25 tossed at us, THE ONLY AND EXCLUSIVE THING WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN INAPPROPRIATE (BUT I DON'T SEE IT AS A BIG DEAL) IS THE COMPARISON WITH THE JUNTA, WHICH WE DEALT WITH ALREDAY. ALL THE REST IS JUST PURE FACTS, NO INSULTS AT ALL. I personally feel that "stiring things up" isn't that far from the truth. IT IS. AND HERE YOU JOIN HER IN INSULTING ME AGAIN. I DID SEND A MESSAGE AND YOU (AS MOD) HAVE TO WATCH YOUR WORDS AS MUCH (IF NOT MORE) AS WE HAVE TO WATCH OURS. He starts off swinging, threatening to pack up and leave and calling us bigot GS WORSE. censors. ARE YOU AFRAIA IF I LEAVE? WHAT KIND OF THREAT IS THAT STATEMENT OF MINE? If he'd simply posted something like, "Could you please clarify the TOS?" or "Could you please explain why my image was removed?" I DID BUT YOU NEVER REPLIED TO IT, AS I AM SAYING FOR THE 15TH TIME. and given us time to answer, then it would have been something entirely different. YES, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT. SO ARE YOU KNOW SAYING THAT YOU DID RECEIVE IT BUT YOU DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO REPLY? I hope this better clarifies NO IT DOESN'T. IT MAKES THINK WORSE

Punklown, I totally agree with you. You seem to be the only one here who is capable of addressing and understanding the issue. I agree it is difficult to spell out everything. That's why you have to exercise extra care in the wording of the messages, be extra careful with the messages you receive in reply to your communications of deletion, and possibly come up with something better in the TOS which indeed allows you to make Renderosity a sort of mid way site as Crecent is saying and most importantly allows people to understand better what is allowed and what is not. That's all I am saying (and Illusions as well, I think). But I totally disagree with you on the issue of Michelle. She was supposed to measure her words more carefully, particularly in public. The fact that my words were strong doesn't allow a mod to accuse me of stirring up a stink because I should have contacted her in private. I did it, and my message was not answered, that's all I know. Her words added insult to injury. I have already said why in my reply to Crecent above. It is very naive of you if you think I will ever make an apology for what I said on this point. And as a matter of fact I am still waiting for a reply from the management on that issue.And when I say a reply I mean an apology.

If your going to quote me, please get it right. That is not what I said.

You can't call it work if you love it... Zen Tambour

Ya know what? I think that if this is going to be a family oriented site, it should be a family oriented site..put up another gallery for art containing nudes. Remove anything in the banners that is not family friendly. Move all the stores that contain nudes, bondage gear, etc..to another place all by itself..on site, but not in the main marketplace. Do not allow nudity or sexually explicit photos {like the one above..I personally think that is a female pinching anothers nipple..I could be wrong tho...} in forums. {oh wait, my nudity filter was on, but shoot...someone forgot to tick the flag...>:( Do not allow foul language in the forums....blah, blah, blah.. I seriously doubt that this will happen..for we all know sex sells >:( Ok, I'll be quiet for awhile now :P

~Jani

Renderosity Community Admin
---------------------------------------

I am truly sorry that you cannot see my very seriously put point about publicly accusing someone of lying. I may be naive, but I honestly don't think that someone expecting others to "measure their words more carefully, particularly in public" can acheive any kind of credibility by failing to follow their own recommendations. In other words, please practice what you preach.

Punkclown, the same applies to you mods (and I am not talking about yourself); Spike, I don't have your instant message any more but this is what you said. Otherwise what did you want to say?

Spike I sent you a couple of IMs, in case you are interested. I am off now.

Ahem So I guess the image up there stays? Im getting a bit confused here myself now....

~Jani

Renderosity Community Admin
---------------------------------------

The problem is that Gilo25 is not a renacense artist, is very much difficult to ban classic art!

Stupidity also evolves!

Doesn't anyone else think this issue is a little, how can I put it, dry? It's become some sort of self-feeding obsession with some people. Image went up. Image was deemed unsuitable. Image taken down. Artist disagreed. Decision stands. Who knows, perhaps it was a harsh decision. Perhaps there really are a dozen more suggestive images in the galleries that haven't been taken down. I didn't see the picture so I don't know. But so what? It's been established that such decisions are to some extent subjective, so people are bound to disagree. Perhaps another perspective would be to ask, "If the image really wasn't against TOS, why did the admins take it down?" One reason could be because they hate the artist and they're engaging in covert attrition warfare. Another could be that they get commission for removing images. Yet another that it's a ploy to ensure popularity of the forums by causing a 20 thousand word argument on the matter. Or is it simpler to assume that the admins genuinely believed the image was unsuitable and, for this reason, decided to remove it whilst at the same time proferring an apology? I know which I think is the most likely. Is there really anything more to say? If I doggedly pursued all the decisions or member remarks that I disagreed with or took offence at you'd need to open a new forum. A last point: If someone wants to make changes to the TOS, as a result of this issue or any other, then why not post a reasoned suggestion in the Suggestion forum? Then everyone can join in. Or is the only purpose now to find a chink in someone's argument, regurgitating vast reams of quotations until someone's caught out or banned or gives in and apologises simply because they can't stand it any more?

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=99959&Start=49&Artist=Brendan&ByArtist=Yes

More musings! with a conciliatory feel I hope? "The problem is that Gilo25 is not a renacense artist, is very much difficult to ban classic art!" On the contrary! it is very easy to proscribe art from any period in history. The phenomenon of censorship is as old as the act of creation itself. I must have been all of six years old when I first saw the painting removed from above. My junior school library had a very comprehensive art section, well thumbed by myself. Being too young to have any sex drive that could be corrupted I did not turn into a Lesbian because of the experience. One of the main stumbling blocks with the TOS is one of culture. Here in the UK we are used to controversy over questions of art but not very conversant with the fuzzy moral thinking of those that want to censor and silence anything that ruffles their own personal psyche. I have had a few run-in's with Renderosity in the past over some of my postings ( no Spike!, not the *Troll* stuff ) and have taken the line of least resistance simply because there is no solution that gets over the present status-quo. I suspect that whoever complained about the Photograph in question is the same sort of person that has difficulty with seeing breastfeeding in public. They are inhibited and unsettled by the most basic and natural manifestations of human sexuality and do not wish to be reminded of their own sense of shame. What many of us outside of the US must try to understand is that places like Renderosity are under scrutiny ( if not siege ) from all sorts of self appointed *Moral* watch dogs that would love the chance to tear the site from limb to limb on any pretext. One pernicious lawsuit from any number of *Moral Crusading* troublemakers would most probably bring the site to it's knees, I would rather that did not happen ( for very selfish reasons!). Though the standard message from Michelle is guaranteed to raise the hackles, I now understand that she is only the messenger and although I find Spikes IM's spiky in tone, I now accept that it is his way and try not to take it personally. Personally!, I would prefer the constant referral of deleted images to Renderotica to cease. It has a unpleasant taste of the qualitative and judgmental about it. I have had many spats with Members, Trolls, Mods and Admins in the past over all sorts of issues. I wish I could have the wasted time back now and reinvest it in something productive. That is a strictly personal view and not directed against anyone here. ********** I have taken the risk of appending a link to an image from the early days of my gallery, ( a badly disguised effort to get some viewing's and ratings ), question is! does this break the TOS in terms of not being *Family Friendly*?, is it perhaps, more suited to Renderotica?.... It could just be a work of art expressing an interior state of mind, albeit with a sexual undertow!. I have many notions of what would constitute a liberal Credo for the TOS. What is clear about the present situation is that we should try to find ways to confound the common enemy of the members and the team at this site. ********** gilo25! Please do not go, rather stay and fight the good fight by mustering your creative arsenal against the slimy foe that lurks around the galleries looking for things to be offended by. They are not as bright as they think! Miles of smiles for everyone!

"P.S. Brendan, the woman in the example you posted looks like she is trying to tune in a radio station rather than being risque!" In the pre-wireless days one had to tweak the Crystal tip for ages to get a clear signal!......yearns for the days when we had to make our own entertainment!....

Classic art is much difficult to censor, it can be done and was done, but today most parts of the world are interconected. What was the reaction of the world with the destruction of the Budhas by the Taleban?, the Budhas are not more there, Taleban is still there, but people like them? Something is wrong, this kind of discusion happenening here should never have existed. Is this site an "Art site" or a "Family site" ruled by dubious moral rules? Why we are not discusing about art, if the nipple radio buttons need postwork or not? I suppose that Renderosity is dedicated to ART, maybe I am wrong about this? ART deals with human emotions and expressions, you can find nudity, violence, eroticism and even porn. Look at the paintings in Pompei, they are porn! and also art!, the vivid colours of the paintings are still there after almost 2000 years. Art is all this, it can be a drawing, a statue, a sculture of a penis or a photograph of a cat, even a primitive painting in the Altamira's coves. Why let incult people's complain destroy some artistic work. If I am wrong and this site is not dedicated to ART, forget all what I have posted and forgive my ignorance, you can censor all you wish.

Stupidity also evolves!

As this particular thread reveals so many fascinating conundrums to do with the spirit and interpretation of the TOS I thought I would re-read it (I am keeping an eye on a render, so have time to fiddle!). Instead of trawling the galleries for examples I followed what looked to be a tantalising link supplied by the site. Step one: Click on the link. Step two: Enter the gallery on the site linked. Step three: Open the first image "Mad Lab". How *Family friendly* is that?....personally I find it quite banal.

Brendon - I'll ask about the Digital Love Doll link. If a site changes what type of images it displays after they join the ring, we don't always know about it. Thanks for the heads-up. I hadn't seen the Mad Lab image before. As for referring some pictures to Renderotica, it's not meant as an insult to Renderotica nor the artist. To me, it's the same thing as suggesting that a cubist image might be more appreciated at a site devoted to modern art instead of one devoted to Rennaisance art. I'm not saying that the picture is horrid and that cubist art is the most evil thing on the face of the Earth, I'm simply suggesting a place where I think there will be viewers who will be more interested in the picture and will appreciate it more. Sorry if it seems like an insult. I suspect that pictures of a cat batting a butterfly in a meadow wouldn't be as appreciated at Renderotica as other pictures there because it's outside their normal theme. It's not a judgement on artistic merit, just on viewer interest. I've seen some beautifully done images with exquisite artistic technique that were not suitable for this site and had to ask the artist to post it at another site. Renderotica is the one that we usually suggest because it is more explicit yet the preferred artistic tools used there are the same ones used here. We also share some of the same members, so people here can go over there to see images we can't put here. It's meant to be nice to Renderotica, to get more people to them who appreciate their more explicit - some would argue more honest - subject matter. Cheers!

Thanks Cresent. It could be that the real issue is one of language? I have received the standard email informing me that an image has been removed. Personally I find the wording brusque if not blunt. An idea to chew over is one of formulating standard messages to members, on issues such as deletions and of OTT slinging matches in the forums, in a more expansive (and possibly coaxing) tone? There is, without doubt, some difficulty in discerning the blurred edges of the TOS. Because it is impossible for Renderosity to cover all eventualities in one statement, a more conciliatory message informing the people involved would go a long way to calming the situation when it arises. What it boils down to, in my mind, is the way that the TOS is unavoidably vague in parts but the communication dealing with deletions can be read as very sharp in it's certainty. I, like many here, happen to be a very sensitive bunny when it comes to rejection. Couple with that the difficulty of being consistent about what gets removed and folks are bound to get aggrieved about what can seem unfair treatment. I second the suggestion, posted earlier in this thread, that perhaps it is time to shunt questionable ( if not all nude content ) work into a gallery of its own with the appropriate disclaimers. A facility for artists to submit images that are doubtful, before posting, might help. If there ain't one already?

No more radio buttons here? Taleban 2 x Art 0

Stupidity also evolves!

"As for referring some pictures to Renderotica, it's not meant as an insult to Renderotica nor the artist. To me, it's the same thing as suggesting that a cubist image might be more appreciated at a site devoted to modern art instead of one devoted to Rennaisance art." Which is a fine sentiment, but I still absolutely detest the argument, "take it to Renderotica" and all it's variations, that appear in threads. Look at it this way, take this argument through to it's logical conclusion, and any time someone posts a costumed superhero in the galleries and we should all be yelling take it to Animotions. And before someone points out that costumed superheros are allowed under the TOS, they are today, what about tomorrow? The fact the banned picture was risque, is a blind alley in the argument about the process of picture removal. Meaning the differece is soley genre of art as far as the argument is concerned. Erotic or risque art is one genre, costumed superheroes is another. The argument is as equally faulty in both genre's. The actual desired end result is to work with the artists of this site and achieve compromise with the artists of this site, not drive them to another site.

We must all remember that this issue is not really about nudity per se. It's about the context of nudity in the image. (Please read PunkClown's explanation on how the different elements of an image play a role in giving context clues. Of course context is subjective to a lot of factors as well, hence the process of deliberation among mods and admins. Bear in mind that we come from different parts of the world as well, and may come to different opinions about certain matters due to our cultural diversity.) We really appreciate the input we received here regarding the TOS and the removal of images. Thank you for your patience as we try to work things out for the common good. :-) starshuffler Renderosity Moderator

"We must all remember that this issue is not really about nudity per se. It's about the context of nudity in the image. " Sorry but for at least 2 of us, the nudity and or context of nudity has nothing to do with our concerns at all. My concerns are simply with the process of image removal/notification and appeal venues. I also have some concern as to the public reactions of the mods in the first thread, note, I do not claim to judge on behind the scenes behaviour, just simply on what they publically posted in black and white in the first thread. Some mods reacted admirably, some regrettably did not. However that is a minor concern, to the main one, which has still gone unanswered, which is the standard the picture was held to. If it was held to the TOS and the TOS only, fine and good. Job well done to the mods. If however the picture was held to the standard of "family-oriented site", how can anyone get upset, is beyond me, when an artist reacts badly to the decision of picture removal, since the artist could NOT possibly have known this standard existed. Asking the artists to agree to a TOS, and abide by it's rules, and then judging by another unwritten set is ludicrous.

You have valid points, X-perimentalman. Sorry for not being all that clear, I was responding to the references to the use of the nudity flag. (To paraphrase my earlier post: There is nothing wrong with nudity per se, it's the context that puts it into contention. After all, it is this issue that has put forth the TOS discussion.)

If however the picture was held to the standard of "family-oriented site", how can anyone get upset, is beyond me, when an artist reacts badly to the decision of picture removal, since the artist could NOT possibly have known this standard existed. This, I think covers that question. Advertising or linking to any publications and/or web sites that are age restricted due to content, and/or pornographic in nature. Even tho we are all from different parts of the world, and come from different backgrounds/cultures, we must remember what state guidelines/rules are in the place where Rendo resides..which is in the U.S. Just because this site is owned by Bondware doesn't mean it can make all its own rules..it HAS to conform ALSO with states rules. {Also, if one posts content here that is deemed 'unsuitable' by Rendo...that is indeed 'advertisment'} This type of content is allowed in many places, but it HAS to be made unaccessable to minors..{or at least an attempt has to be made} on the part of Rendo, AND the parents of said minors. The site and Bondware can be shut-down if these attempts are not made. Rules are rules, not everyone is going to like them, but it doesn't give one the right to break them because of it.

~Jani

Renderosity Community Admin
---------------------------------------

Illusions, a question: "It is about a lack of understanding and little desire to attempt understanding." By whom? Are you refering to yourself. Let me put this another way...if this is about being fair then I would think that any reasonable person may say that being fair is reading the genuine attempts at explanations given and aknowledging them - even gilo25 aknowledged the point about not being able to cover every image/situation with a definitive "spelt out" TOS description. He then shifted tack to talk about the communications being sent out regarding images being removed perhaps being inadequate. This issue will be looked at, I am sure. The market place issues will be also be looked at I am sure. So where is the issue being misunderstood or no attempt being made to understand it? On which side of the coin? ~ perhaps there has been a bit of misunderstanding on both sides?...it can happen you know.
Where is being right more important than being fair? Once again are you refering to yourself? No, really...I could quite easily look at these (your) statements and think they were just as applicable to you, gilo25 and all the others who would criticise...you seem so determined and indignant in your "rightness" you may be blinded to your own behaviours. IMHO, if this is about being fair then I would also think that any reasonable person may say that being fair is not publicly accusing people of lying with no factual basis. Being fair is not being hypocritical and expecting standards to be applied to one group of people, such as mods and admin and completely failing to follow such expected standards in kind or expecting them to be followed by other members who happen to agree with your point of view. Being fair is actually acknowledging all the polite and sincere responses to address this issue.

Illusions, your post # 90 is spot on! It perfectly summarizes the issues in a couple of lines.

I disagree with what Punkclown is saying above, but I will not reply to it any more, first of all because it has been said already, and secondly because my comments are not welcome by the admin. I have been formally warned 'in private' by Spike to basically shut up since the case is closed. Of course Spike will deny that, but I can send the relevant IM's to whoever is interested. I would continue this debate, if I felt that there is a genuine interest to change things. But now I know that there isn't. I would like to thank all those who contributed significantly to this discussion. I won't mention anybody in particular, because I may forget somebody. I will definitely stop posting here until I see some significant improvements in the direction we suggested. So I will observe quietly. I will try my best not to bite the bait and reply to any more provoking statements from the mods. Depending on the developments, I may decide, at the end, to pull down all my work, if that's the case. If somebody wants to view my work, just send me an IM. I am now putting it up now on another free site. All the best and thank you again.

Punk Clown, illusions answer was to obviously to jumpstartme2's answer to my post above it. jumpstartme2 looked at a very narrow view, meaning the fact the image of gilo25 was perceived to either be porn or to risque anyway for this site. illusions answered quite clearly what I have also said several times in this thread, the fact that this particular picture was pulled for that reason, has nothing to do with the issues both illusions and I saw in that first thread.The reasons for the image being pulled is simply a red herring in relation to those issues. The genre for the next picture to be pulled may not be risque art but something else, and all those arguments fall by the wayside. However the things illusions and I have pointed out will still be there, risque art or not. As to your hypocritical statement, I don't see anything the least bit hypocritical in expecting the mods and admins to be held to the same standard of behaviour and the TOS as the members are. When the mods and admins start tapdancing around the TOS to get their sarcastic digs in, which happened in the first thread, is when I really wonder if there is anything about this site left worth banging my head against the wall for.

Or to put it another way ~ I don't see anything the least bit hypocritical in expecting the members to be held to the same standard of behaviour and the TOS as the mods and admins are. I agree completely, what I was suggesting was that the members should also exhibit the same standards that they expect of the mods. To deliberately ignore the points made in my last post about the issue of fairness will not change the fact that what is being preached by some members is not being practiced.

I didn't deliberately ignore the points, I was politely trying to defend illusions, and myself by extension, of the wording, from the accusation of being hypocrites. " Being fair is not being hypocritical and expecting standards to be applied to one group of people, such as mods and admin and completely failing to follow such expected standards in kind or expecting them to be followed by other members who happen to agree with your point of view." That is your exact quote, as well as "to you, gilo25 and all the others who would criticise". I mean, lets be fair here, those statements read to me pure and simple that those of us who dared to criticize the process and or decision of removing this picture are being hypocrites. As to the rest of your points, since I haven't personally accused anyone of lying, since I HAVE acknowledged in more than one of my replies by name and group those moderators whom I thought did a good job in the first thread, where tempers were flaring, and since I have not given anyone a sly little backhanded insult, like was given to me in the first thread, I personally want to know where in the hell I just deserved to be called a hypocrite, and told I am both operating at a lower standard than you are, and deliberatley ignoring your points. Which I find highly ironic, since I have had one question and point, completely ignored since the first thread, and I have made a point to bring that question up every response to this thread, and never get an answer.

However that is a minor concern, to the main one, which has still gone unanswered, which is the standard the picture was held to. If it was held to the TOS and the TOS only, fine and good. Job well done to the mods. If however the picture was held to the standard of "family-oriented site", how can anyone get upset, is beyond me, when an artist reacts badly to the decision of picture removal, since the artist could NOT possibly have known this standard existed. If its about the picture, how can that be a narrow view? This issue about the TOS and fairness arose because of an image being pulled...and from all that I read, none of the reasons seemed to be good enough. Whatever...lets just switch to the fairness act..I agree that ALL here should be treated fairly..one set of rules for everybody. I never called anyone a hypocrite, so that couldn't have been aimed at me :P Oh, and Illusions and I get along just peachy, so dont worry about defending him {from me anyways} He's not biting me, and I'm not biting him :P ~Jani

~Jani

Renderosity Community Admin
---------------------------------------

jumpstartme2, it wasn;t your post I was defending him, and by extension me from, it was punkclown's. In answer to the narrow view, to try and put my meaning into perspective, it's not neccessarily about this particular picture. I have never said anywhere in either of these two threads, that this particular picture should still be in the gallery. This picture was just a catalyst, these arguments I have been trying to make about the process could just as easily apply to the next Mr. Fluffers type picture, which aren;t the least bit erotic. it's why I have said, the erotic nature of this particular picture is a red herring to the arguments of the removal process. and no the hypocrite wasn;t aimed at you, just boomeranging off of me back to whence it originated from.

Oops, me bad. Sowweeee :)

~Jani

Renderosity Community Admin
---------------------------------------

Your very first statements, X-perimentalman, just to try and get my head around what your concerns are in this thread:
*"Thank you, for locking the censorship thread, while I was in mid reply, to a thinly aimed veiled personal insult by a moderator made to myself and illusions.... I had a very polite response, pointing out this matter is never closed, since it will continue to rear up every time a work is deleted subjectively. Some of us were actually trying to get that point across.

I am no no longer being polite, you took the very type of action that caused this mess in the first place, so you can have my response,

IT WILL BE A COLD DAY IN HELL BEFORE I EVER SPEND A DIME IN THE MARKETPLACE AGAIN!!!!!!!!".

Later you say:
"However that is a minor concern, to the main one, which has still gone unanswered, which is the standard the picture was held to."
~ Here you are referring to the standard gilo25's picture was held to (and any future potential problematic pictures, I gather) - further along you say:
"It's not about a particular image...It is about vague, unclear, and contradictory standards."
...so then it's not about any particular picture, but the standards it's being judged by...then further on again you say:
"I mean, lets be fair here, those statements read to me pure and simple that those of us who dared to criticize the process and or decision of removing this picture are being hypocrites." ~ again the reference to the process and or the decision of removing the image. You have taken up this call; you are basically repeating gilo25's concerns, yes?
Well let us be fair here, yes, let us...
From your initial statement I got the impression you were upset because a reply you were making to a perceived insult was locked. You accuse Spike of an abuse of power. Later you talk about images being removed subjectively...quickly I will address this: images are not removed subjectively, the decision is always talked about and voted on, this has been explained previously, but obviously ignored.... later you talk about the process of judgment, you want definitive wording to cover every possible circumstance that may arise necessitating an images removal? Let me restate what I said in post #67:
"...judging the appropriateness of images that may not be completely covered by the TOS in the context of their whole gestalt: These elements cannot always be broken down into specific rules or delineations, but need to be taken into consideration when viewed as a whole, in context...which is why we have to occasionally have to discuss & vote on some images. This is not about adequacy of the TOS...no set of written definitions or rules can cover every conceivable circumstance or image. Some of these things can not by their very nature of needing to be assessed in a holistic context, be clearly defined by words (i.e. a specific TOS wording)" ~ This after all, is directly addressing what seems to have been one of your major concerns...that you wanted to know on what criterion your image was deleted." ~
So X-perimentalman, isn't this what you said your concerns were too?
Or was it the insults (thinly veiled) ~ Which was your major concern?
Now you want to take my hypocrite statement as an insult too? Well as I said before, the greatest insult has been deliberately ignored and not addressed by you X-perimentalman. You started this thread on the basis of a thinly veiled insult, an abuse of power, ~ all these words you have thrown around, and yet you dont want to defend an honest member who also happens to be a mod? You dont want to address that insult that occurred in your thread too? You dont want to examine that issue? No?just look the other way and concentrate on your other agenda which was what again? Oh, thats right your major concern of standards & decision making in image removal. Of course that is far more important issue than a little libel being raised in your thread eh? (YES, I'm being sarcastic) Well, as I said, that particular issue (standards & decision making etc) was addressed already in #67.
Coming back to the libel thing though, even though the statements that I regard as libelous and insulting in the extreme werent made by you - seeing as you started this thread on the basis of insultsyou dont think its just a little bit disingenuous of you that you chose to ignore that interjection into your thread, not address it just a little, say thats not what you wanted to talk about and it was not a fair statementconsidering you go on so much about being fair later on regarding other things? Why not? Because it was made by someone whose complaints originally started this whole discussion, whose ideas you seem to be championing, the one that you and illusions wanted to join in the chorus with too, in your criticism of aspects of Renderosity, its mods and so on? Maybe that's why I got a feel of hypocrisy, but perhaps hypocrisy was the wrong word (except I do believe it does apply to gilo25 and I will stand by that for all of the reasons I have stated before) Perhaps I should be talking about a cynical and opportunistic use of the thread for what constructive purpose I really dont know, but it certainly doesnt seem to me to be a fair one.

Of course no written set of rules, can cover every set of situations that can arise, and since you've gone back and read my posts, you'll see that in both threads, I have said on more than one occasion, that the TOS does have and needs a broad range of discretionary powers. You'll also note I have stated repeatedly that in this particular instance of the removal of the picture that IF the standard of removal for this picture was the TOS then, job well done to the Mods. You should also note that I have repeatedly expressed a concern over what the actual standard this picture was held to. Since it was posted, by a MOD in the first thread, the standard and criterion this picture was held to was "is this picture suitable for a family oriented site?" My question, and concern regarding this criterion, which has gone unanswered, for two threads now, is simple, is this the criterion all pictures here are judged by? or was this criterion created for this SPECIFIC image? If the answer is the first, then it should be added to the TOS, or the posting guidelines, if the second, why, and why not just the TOS, which is the defining rules, and more than adequate for the situation. None of this, or very little was addressed in post #67, or any other post in these threads. As for defending a moderator from what you call libel, I am not in a postion to do so. As far as I can tell that argument is over whether gilo25 attempted to contact said mod, via IM or email, he says yes, she says no. Since I have no insider information, or contact with either of them, I have no idea if he did or didn't, and no way to prove any opinion I may hold on the subject anyway. So since I do not rush to defend your ally, when I can have no possible idea if your ally is right or wrong, that makes me a hypocrite or at least cynical and opportunistic. Nice touch. As to the insults, all I see from you, is the same I see from the last thread, a pretty little attempt by a moderator to make an end run around the TOS and belittle and insult members who dared question either the reasons, or process of this images removal. That is in fact what got the last thread locked, and started this one, creating this second mess. Something that I am sure is about to happen to this one.

Ok I will try my hand at answering questions pertaining to the process that All Gallery Images are put up against when reviewed [I am not going to go into specifics of any one image as this thread was to be an over-all discussion of the process in which an image is reviewed however, please note: this is the review that all images go through)

{The following is also listed in the Renderosity's TOS}

When viewing an image to see if it is Unacceptable for the Renderosity Galleries the following TOS are taken into account:

Does the image contain rape, or the direct implication of it?
Does the image depict any form of Torture [Nailing any person to a cross other than Jesus {as he is particular image is considered a religious icon} is considered torture].
Does the image have any Sexual acts - this includes sexual acts between either sexes.
Does the image contain any Physical Arousal?
Although this is an easy call when viewing male figures [for obvious reasons], it can be subjective when viewing a female character. Some factors that are taken into consideration: facial expression, hand placements, body placements, etc.
Do any of the figures in the images come in contact of the Genital region, with ANY object, other than sitting or clothing.?
Does the image display depictions of young humanoid characters in erotic, seductive, provocative poses or context.
Does the images portray a character attack, which could be interpreted as defamation of character, slander, and libelous?
Lastly: If an image is considered to be "Deemed unsuitable for the Renderosity Community in general" - that image can be removed at the discretion of staff!

As you know, Renderosity does not have a preview-before-you-post policy, and any member can upload any image to their gallery! [A few members, either do not read the Image TOS, or just wish to ignore them, and post images that do indeed violate Renderosity Gallery Terms Of Service].

As moderators we spend a great deal of our time viewing gallery images. Some of the galleries have hundreds of posting per day, while others only a few per month. As much as I would like to say that we view every image the moment it is posted - this is just not a physical reality We as moderators only have so much time we can be online, and at times images that do violate the TOS do go unnoticed

That is why we also depend on Renderosity members to bring any images that they feel violate the TOS to the attention of the Mods or Admins.

If we receive a complaint about an image from a member [it does not matter if it is a complaint by 1 member or 20 members] the image is brought to the attention of the Moderator-Image-Review-Board. This board consists of the moderators and Admins, with a wide range of cultural and artistic background who are well versed in Renderositys TOS.

Within the Review thread is a link to the image in question, so that it can be viewed by all board review members. A discussion is held referencing all points made that would either deem or redeem the image as to TOS violations. After this deliberation the image is either removed or allowed to stay.

If the image is allowed to stay an IM is sent to any member who voiced a complaint letting them know the image was not in TOS violation.

However if the image is in TOS violation, it is removed. An email is sent to the member with a brief explanation of why the image was removed, along with a copy and paste of the exact TOS violation, and a link to Renderositys Terms Of Service web page.

In the majority of cases, the artist will reply with whoops, Im sorry or Oh I didnt realize that my image violated TOS.

In a very few cases, artists will email back disagreeing with our decision and include Their Explanation of why they think the image Did Not Violate TOS. In the rare case when this does happen, an email is sent back to the artist, advising them that their image will be put back before the review board along with the artist views as to why they feel their image should not have been removed.

The Moderator-Image-Review Board will take a second look at the image and take into account the views of the artist, and in a few cases the image will be allowed to be resubmitted to the gallery sometimes with simply modifications. However, due to the strict First Review process that each image goes through before it is removed the decision is rarely reversed: but it has happened. One case in point was an image that appeared to have genital contact with an object the artist sent us several different angles of his image and the decision to allow his image to be reposted using one of the alternate views was granted.

Please note If the image is in clear violation of TOS Example: a savage rape of a young girl the image is immediately removed without first going through the review board., however, as above, on all removed images an email explanation is sent to the artist when an image is removed.

Do we restrict certain artwork from being posted on this site? Yes

All sites have their own set of TOS Gallery Guidelines. I have recently visited several sites to see how Renderositys Gallery TOS compares, and even I was surprised at how restrictive many of the other sites are compared to Renderosity! I invite you to do this as well. Even adult oriented sites have TOS restrictions!

Are we censoring artists from posting their images? No
All artists are welcomed to post any image that Does fall Within Our TOS, on any other site that will accept the image under that sites TOS.

So, what does the clause 8 [If an image is considered to be "Deemed unsuitable for the Renderosity Community in general" - that image can be removed at the discretion of staff! ] mean? Isnt that rather vague and doesnt that give the Review Board the power to delete any image they want just because they feel like it? No

If an image is deemed unsuitable for the site, you can be assured that it has been discussed at great lengths by all Board Review Members Images that are "Deemed unsuitable for the Renderosity Community in general" can fall into several criteria:

One example would be: Overtly sexual in content: An analogy: An erotic image that would be suitable for penthouse, no matter how artistic would not be suitable for the majority of other magazines on the market. As for that matter An image that appears in hustler magazine would not be allowed to be featured in Playboy.

If you feel that there should be no restrictions placed on an artists artwork, and all images should be allowed to be posted No Matter What the Content You will need to find an Art Site without any Terms Of Service, or Create your own web site and post your images to that site.

Are Renderositys Gallery Terms of Service more restrictive than the majority of Art Gallery Web sites? As I have stated above, I have recently checked the TOS from a wide variety of sites and Renderositys Image guidelines are right in line, and in some cases more liberal than most

I hope this helps to clarify our policies on: Reviewing and Removing or Approving Gallery images, as well as our policies on contacting artists whose images were removed.

As Spike, and the other Moderators have mentioned above if you wish to make any constructive changes to the Gallery TOS, we are very eager to hear what you have to say.

For those who say that Renderosity Never Listens to their members: Consider the recent addition of the Gallery Violence Alert Button this was implemented because members requested it.

So, Please keep your TOS ideas coming in The time and thought that you put into your constructive ideas for change is very appreciated! ladynimue moderator

Thank you for your courteous reply - I must however respectfully disagree with you on a couple of points.

First and foremost - I am no different than the rest of the Moderators on Renderosity - We are all very dedicated to not only the Renderosity Site, but especially to its members. We are however, also human, and although we try to always explain things in a manner that everyone can agree to and understand, sometimes the "typed word" just does not come across the way we wish it to be perceived. I am no exception to this I have had my share of mis-typed-understandings.
Every point that I mentioned in my above posting, has also been mentioned by the other moderators - I just gathered everyone's thoughts and words into one posting.
I promise you that all constructive comments and suggestions made within this thread are being taken into consideration!
I agree that unfortunately, sometimes threads get confrontational in content - and I am sure that you will agree with me that most of this stems from frustration. The downside of online communications is the lack of eye-contact or voice-reflection typed words get jumbled and content can be misread and thus misunderstood.
I promise you that this is not a Mods against Members issue - after all the Moderators are members too :)
Renderosity really is open-minded, and really does allow members to state their views as everyone who has posted to this thread can verify your views have not been censored and have been read; and those that are constructive are being taken under consideration to improve the site.

As a side note - My favorite TOS can be found under:
Member/User Conduct:

Members and users are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that is constructive and respectful of others at all times. Additionally, we would hope that each member/user would do their best to facilitate a culture of collaboration and positive reinforcement, so that we can all share our passion for art while realizing our personal ambitions, and developing friendships.

Bottom-line: Artists are a Passionate Lot that includes the moderators we do our very best to make your time on Renderosity as pleasant of an experience as possible honest, cross my heart we do :)

ladynimue

You have a system in place. You know it's not perfect. But you do your best to be fair. I know first hand from the mod. forum discussions that you folks try to be fair. Even if it doesn't always work out that way. That's good enough. It needs no defending. Why do I continually see mod after mod. Pour into these threads trying to defend the administration's decisions? It's ugly. Get a grip on your team Spike.

......?.......cough!......................................................................... ................................................................................?.................. ..................................................shuffle...................................... ......................?............................................................................ ..................................................................................................... ...........................................................................yawn................ .........blink.....blink..............................................................?.....

Thanks Scott for posting that. You are 100% right. Take it from a Ex-mod that has seen it from both sides. This thread has gone to the point where it's just members wanting to fight. I am no longer going to post to this thread. It's over...

You can't call it work if you love it... Zen Tambour

Personally! I think some progress has been made. ..unless I am to disregard what ladynimue has being saying recently? It would be nice to know who's voice is to be taken as the official view of the administration. Brendan. 101% sure that this thread has had some value for the community.

ladynimue, thank you for your concise post to this thread. it does actually answer some outstanding questions,even if you do feel it is a recap of other statements. Since the notification issue is being looked at, and likely will be improved. A set appeal system is already in place. other issues like the dichtomy of bondage gear in the marketplace and overtly sexually overtoned banner ads, compared to the standards in the gallery will likely get some more looking at. (Not that I have anything against either bondage gear or sexually overtoned banner ads, I personally like both.:}) So that leaves my major issue, the judging standard of "family-oriented" as opposed to or in addition to the TOS. As I have posted several times in both these threads, if something is posted such as a friendly reminder in the posting guidlines, mentioning that standard, so new or newer artists know it exists, that would really help there. No great re-writing of the TOS is either required or desired. Those steps would certainly go along way, in my opinion anyway to diffuse these situations in the future as they occur. That leaves the bunker mentality that exists on both sides of these issues. To be honest if I knew the answer for that I could run for God.

my responce to these whole last 2 threds is this: Rosity is a Business. Weither u buy into that or not... it is. As a business it has a very professonal appearence to upkeep. They try to create rule in while do not bind most artists.. but yet still try to keep peace and professonalism. Like it has been said before in this strand, this is a private site, run by this company. They give us free hard drive space, and 100000000gigs of bandwidth daily. Wether or not Rosity breaks even after the "utilities" are paid or not, is none of our concern. We have all volentaroly signed up for Rosity membership, and we have all checked a statment that states we understand the rules of the land, and will do our best to follow them. Unfortunatly, 90%+ of the members of Rosity are some sort of artists, and artists are pationate people. Hench the huge uprising when a large group of pationate people are startign to bump heads, and turns into a mosh pit. Art is art. Weather a mural on a wall, crayons on paper, or blood on the tip of a pen, art has infinate forms. What sucks about art though is that no matter what piece of art you create you will never please everyone. When it comes to TOS vios, the art that you have created disturbs more people than moves them. Or does not fit into society's lil grove of whats correct or wrong. My suggestion is, if you dont like smell of something, dont stick around it. Thats why most artist have their own website, there all you have to worry about is the host company of your server gettin pissed at you. I run a site called projectbluecell.com I too have had art banned from rosity. and that when i found fellow artist with the same problem. I am still fully active here at rosity, but images that i feel that will get negative attention here... i post there. removes the total possibilty of drama. Sure people might email me abotu how WACKED out a piece is.. but all i do is delete it and move on. Ive told gilo25 hes more than welcome to have a little corner of my site to post his work. Ill be honest.. i only read 45% of last thread and about 15% of this one... then every1 started yelling and what not.. so im nto sure what everone said. my suggestion. Your gettin stuff for free, you agreed to Rosity's terms when you joined... Deal with it, or find yourself a site thats will to host your work. p.s. im not goin into the POSER vs Porno convo... cause i can deal out about 50 urls of pics on rosity that are nothign more than child porn with pointy ears... and wings.. lol... but liek i said.. i wont touch it.

Forum: Community Center

Subject: Nice abuse of power Spike