heroart is new to this forum, but not to the CG art communities in general. Here I was hoping to find a community based on love for art, with an ethical and supportive staff, unlike other venues I have visited. Unfortunately, I have discovered that this place is even worse. Recently, one of my favorite artists told me that she has had pictures deleted and been banned......not because she violated the terms of agreement here, but because she had the nerve to try to expose the staff for their false accusations. I have seen the pictures myself, and I checked the terms of agreement here very carefully. She did not violate the agreement. She has been banned simply because she dared to proclaim the truth. Is this the kind of community the members want? If so, it is a sad time for artists in this country.

yep life sux would explain my mood for the past week

If I were you, I'd wait until I've been here a while longer before passing judgment on what this community is based on... you never know, you might realize that even the mods are only human and that the majority of the members here are very helpful and friendly. France

France, Proud Owner of

KCTC Freebies  

Which "truth" did she expose? It's not whether we think the images we post don't violate TOS; it's whether the admins think they violate the TOS. If they were pedophile or porno images, there are other sites eager to host them. There may be some pedophile or porno images that slip thru the enforcement net, but they're only human - they can't catch them all.

France is right. Ignore all the the bad stuff and often silly arguements and you'll soon find stacks of talented, helpfull and friendly people here. It's more friendlylier than some other places out there.

Pinky - you left the lens cap of your mind on again.

I havent heard of a lot of folks being banned, around here, and if they have been they most likely had a severe TOS violation, something like child porn, or stealing other work, or even plagiarism. I don't know who your friend is or seen her work but she must have done something else than "try to expose the staff for their false accusations" to get her work pulled and banned.

Give the community a try, and don't guide yourself by what others say, you can push the envelope but dont cross the line, and you'll be fine.

Ask me a question, and I'll give you an answer.

As Francemi said, you should wait more than one day to complain about the website. Anyway, I hope we don't get a flame war here. <---signature---> Free your Maya Opaque3D http://www.digital-opaque.net

nemirc
Renderosity Magazine Staff Writer
https://renderositymagazine.com/users/nemirc
https://about.me/aris3d/

Is this the kind of community the members want? Well, we pretty much have to lump it or leave it, don't we? We have exactly two options: put up with it or leave. bonni

"When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch." - Bette Davis

bonni, I love your style! lolll France

France, Proud Owner of

KCTC Freebies  

lol, that was a good one :p <---signature---> Free your Maya Opaque3D http://www.digital-opaque.net

nemirc
Renderosity Magazine Staff Writer
https://renderositymagazine.com/users/nemirc
https://about.me/aris3d/

Why do I have a feeling this is about 'HeartSong' again? ;)

I didn't say I was new to Renderosity, I said I was new to this FORUM. I'm not surprised to see the moderators like nemirc and and mateo responding with non-sequiturs in the form of grunts and hoots...I've heard it's their trademark after all, and allowances must be made for those of limited capabilities. And of course they will defend themselves and their cohorts as petty beaurocrats always do. Where else would they get any feeling of personal power? Certainly not from their own capabilities! mrsparky, thanks for the honest attempt at being helpful, but sometimes things are so badly wrong that you just have to speak out. galactron22 - of COURSE you haven't heard of a lot of people being banned around here! How would you hear about it? They are banned, and they are forbidden from showing their pictures in public to prove that they did nothing wrong!! If they protest their unfair treatment or ask for a public forum in which to air their greivance, they are banned permanently. The rest of you - if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

I second Birddie. *still keeping an eye on the thread* <---signature---> nemirc Animation Forum

nemirc
Renderosity Magazine Staff Writer
https://renderositymagazine.com/users/nemirc
https://about.me/aris3d/

heroart, YOU are part of the problem because YOU are creating a problem. GEEZ!!! First post you make and it is to critic ( c'est un euphisme d'ailleurs) everyone here except your "friend" and yourself. BTW, are you sure your "friend" is your "friend" and not yourself? A friendly community is composed of people who respect TOS, respect each other and respect themselves. People who don't know the signification of the word "respect" don't bring anything positive to a community. This is MHO and I don't like at all for a new member (ok ok you are not new to renderosity... but still you ARE new to this forum and thus, this specific community) to come here and start a flame war. So, to be more specific than bonni, if you don't like it here, go elsewhere and don't bother us. Thank you. P.S. IF ever I get banned for writing this, I'll live with it. Mais sert rien, les effront et les gens qui ne savent pas vivre, j'ai ben d'la mise avec moi! France

France, Proud Owner of

KCTC Freebies  

As with most sites where there are forums we are always in the hands of moderators, usually unpaid people.

This is part of the problem that leads to inconsistiencies, not just here. Unpaid volunteers are not always the best choice, however willing they may be.

Here, in the Poser forum, you sometimes need a thick skin when expressing opinions that others don't agree with.

The Poser forums at RDNA are generally friendly.

Message edited on: 03/16/2005 22:11

The rest of you - if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. I'd like to know what you think we, "the members" might actually be able to do? Boycotting is a possibility, and I know lots of people who do boycott R'sity because they got fed up with it for one reason or another. Basically, boycotting is the same as "leaving". Denial of service attack? Illegal. Bitching loudly in forums? We do that already and it doesn't do any good at all. Post things on the net about how bad Renderosity is? Well, we could, but I dunno what more good it'd do beside bitching in forums... We could always go off and create our own 3D art community, as more than a few people have done (again, this is "leaving"). So, to me, it still seems like we may not like a lot of the stuff that goes on around here, but there's not much we can do about it other than leave. I've got plenty of arguments with the way they do stuff around here, but what am I gonna do? What are any of us going to do other than put up or shut up? bonni

"When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch." - Bette Davis

I am not new to the galleries but I AM new to the forum. What IS happening to Heart'song's pictures? I have become fond of a few favorites here though I have never commented, peferring to just browse in silence, but lately I've noticed even older pictures being removed, and not just Heart'song's. I see the old bugbear "nudity" has reared it's head in another American setting! Also, I have noticed that when people question the removal of their pictures too vigourously the thread is removed. Looks like censorship to me. Of course this IS a privately run forum so the moderators can censor whomever they please, it just seems like intellectual cowardice. What's going on? One would expect a commmunity of artists to be one of the last bastions of DEBATE and conversation, especially concerning the age old "smut versus art" argument. I was (am) very fond of Heart'songs pictures, usually displayed with great feeling, but I have not seen anything resembling porn here...unless PLENTY of other pictures here look like porn to certain people also. And I am SURE someone here does think most of the scantily clad faeries are pornographic! How childish! Interesting parallels to the FCC "crackdown" and debates going on in the non-artist rest of the country. What a shame. I always expect art communities to be more comfortable with painted images and fantasies. Anyway, what did happen to Heart'song's pictures? And it seems logical that one would not hear of people being banned if they are BANNED!!! Banning, by it's very definition, means a loss of, at the very least, a voice.

Although I'm not a moderator here, nor an employee of any kind, I see I touched a nerve, so it must be about kiddie porn again, as usual. The admins here have made it pretty clear they don't want kiddie porn here, and it's their definition they use, not my definition, not the Supreme Court definition, not that of any member. They have to operate under the community standards of their location in the U.S., and for all I know that jurisdiction is very strict in going after kiddie porn sites. So perhaps for them it's equally disgusting for a newbie to attack them on a policy that they have no choice but to enforce. But like I said, it's no big deal. If you want to post kiddie porn, there are probably some members-only yahoo groups, as well as some websites that split off from this one during the vicious nude fairy debate we had, several years ago. Those more liberal sites may not want kiddie porn either, but your chances of an appreciative audience and a more permissive administration are much better there.

Not even Rotica accepts pictures of nude digital children... Just something I felt like sharing... <---signature---> nemirc Animation Forum

nemirc
Renderosity Magazine Staff Writer
https://renderositymagazine.com/users/nemirc
https://about.me/aris3d/

Looks like censorship to me. Welcome to Renderosity! bonni

"When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch." - Bette Davis

Someone comes in here for one day, and then posts with attitude. I think that I am smelling the fresh-ground aroma of "agenda" steaming up from this particular cup....... I doubt that anyone will win any converts here. shrug ........not worth the trouble.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

After 3 years, I've gotten used to the 'schedule'. They're are like holidays. - dufflebagism, - the changing of the guards (new mods every three months), - beating the dead horse, - baggering the top twenties, - and my favorite of all: 'the September Sweep!' << you veterans know what I am talking about. hehehe. I can actually find these activities amusing now.

---

---

Software: Daz Studio 4.15,  Photoshop CC, Zbrush 2022, Blender 3.3, Silo 2.3, Filter Forge 4. Marvelous Designer 7

Hardware: self built Intel Core i7 8086K, 64GB RAM,  RTX 3090 .

"If you spend too much time arguing about software, you're spending too little time creating art!" ~ SomeSmartAss

"A critic is a legless man who teaches running." ~ Channing Pollock

My Gallery  My Other Gallery 

I agree with you Xenophonz... dropping the topic now. France

France, Proud Owner of

KCTC Freebies  

The rest of you - if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Kidding right?

Um, one point.... everyone keeps saying "kiddie porn" but weren't heartsongs characters wearing clothing?
If that's a fact then we do have a problem here with the enforcement of the TOS against an innocent person.

...... Kendra

It's also worth mentioning that unclothed children are not automatically equivalent to "kiddie porn". There are plenty of reasons for innocent nudity in persons of all ages. Yes, some of the images that were pulled were clothed. One of them had a semi-sheer skirt and one had a decorative jeweled bottom type thing which mods felt "drew attention to the genitals" despite the fact that NO genitals were in ANY way visible. Another was nude but, in my estimation, not particularly childlike. ALL of the images were innocent, were not sexually themed or posed, and only a very sick mind would find them in any way erotic. However, the Powers That Be have spoken, and there's not a single damned thing any one of us can do about it. bonni

"When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch." - Bette Davis

Don't feed the troll. Jack

heroart, you are completely right. I know whom you are talking about and I've seen all the pictures posted in a different forum. Where the TOS has been violated is a mystery for me. Looks like someone has an eye on that longtime Rosity artist and is just stirring up shit and nothing more. And now it's even forbidden to post an image that covers the genital area with a huge square because a square would not be seen as appropriate covering plus it's also verboten to post links to other Poser online stores.

Message edited on: 03/17/2005 02:42

Every organisation rests upon a mountain of secrets ~ Julian Assange

Yesterday I saw a billboard on the street and thought about R'osity immediately. It was advertisement of some kind of "mental help center". In the middle of the photo there was a giant leaf and there was a nekkid 4/5-years old boy (I think it was a boy because of haircut, no genitals were shown) laying on it. Quite artistic, child looked so innocent and lost... Anyway, I thought that if someone posted here similar render would be banned in no time. Dunno why, I asked my parents, my brother, my boyfriend and even two of my teachers - no one ever thought about billboard being child porn. They rather said it's sweet and impressive as a piece of art. So, no more rendered mothers with nude infants or nekkid kids on the beach/playground (common scene in Poland during hot summer days)? It's not that we're protecting child porn, but I guess we have a bit healthier look at the problem. In every community there are people who want to be more saint than the God. Always were, always will be. Not all moderators are suffering from the problem, but this disease is spreading on "normal" members too (remember thread about big-boobed Laura ?). No more posts from me on the topic. My rendered nude infants with faerie wings stay on my home PC ;) (no offence to faerie art)

---

Outdated gallery over at DeviantArt

Fics at FanFiction.net and Archive of Our Own (AO3)

I just looked at some gallery images and I think on this one the girl has a very suggestive look on her face ...

and this one draws the attention to her genital area. Wonder why they are allowed to stay?

And I wouldn't be surprised if I'd receive a warning now because I'm sure some won't like my examples very much :P But if you are going to apply the TOS equally start with your own gallery, mods!

Every organisation rests upon a mountain of secrets ~ Julian Assange

Ever seen works by Raphael, Michelangelo, Rubens, Boucher, Van Eyck? No nude Christ child or angel can be considered pornography. Or Rembrandt's peeing infant Ganymedes that is abducted by Zeus in the shape of an eagle? But times have changed, the pendulum is now at about the end of the conservatist movement for whom even mysticism is either pure sex or something you can make money from. And usually both. The only way you can do something about it is by stopping to spend money. Don't buy anymore. That way Ebay/Paypal and other bigger and smaller moneymakers will change their minds quickly. But you must face the consequences as sites like Rederosity and Daz thrive on their marketplaces. And many merchants would lose an income. Or you could start a site of your own, and come here to ask the necessary questions in case you have something you don't understand. My friend is also a mod at a photoshop forum. Once they removed an image with link to real a "pornography" site. But usually they ask the creator to remove it her/himself, explaining why. moderating a forum is not easy, and it's done by humans. With preferences, and sometimes personal vendettas. Just like in real life. Not every police officer is a friendly "uncle copper".

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." C. S. Lewis

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

Extract: "......not because she violated the terms of agreement here, but because she had the nerve to try to expose the staff for their false accusations. I have seen the pictures myself, and I checked the terms of agreement here very carefully. She did not violate the agreement." Comment: Utterly absurd. 1 - If she had not violated the TOS, then the images would not have been removed, unless you know of some particular personal vendetta and reveal the specifics. 2 - You speak of accusations. If so, then shut your piehole before you do any more damage to the case and take it to court. False accusations are not something to be handled in this manner. 3 - You apparently did not check the TOS closely enough, or grasp the full significance of two elements: 1 - the TOS clearly lays out they they are the interpreters and arbiters of it (something you agreed to, note) and what is not stated but shouldn't need to be: they own the damn thing and can do what ever they want with it. Ergo: she did violate the rules. You just disagree with the decision -- and on an emotional basis, at that, instead of a reasoned one. Extract: "How would you hear about it? They are banned, and they are forbidden from showing their pictures in public to prove that they did nothing wrong!! If they protest their unfair treatment or ask for a public forum in which to air their greivance, they are banned permanently." Comment: That is idiocy. Think about that one for a very long time before you respond. Extract: "The rest of you - if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." Comment: I see. That's an incredible simplistic worldview. Aside from being equivalent is social level to a third grader conceptually, it is on a level with "My commander made me do it" in usage. You say you are not new to the site -- perhaps you should exit this forum and return to the galleries -- less likelihood of your heartfelt frustration being mocked there. Or, better yet, leave this community. It is apparent that the standards to which it holds itself are not yours -- why give them the satisfaction of your eyeballs?

Yeah... and DaVinci was a homosexual who had to argue for his life against conviction when he was caught en flagrante (conviction for a second offense would mean burning to death on a grill in the public square... a new definition to hot-crossed buns... not fun). There is a charming notation in his workbooks where he talks of the acquisition of a pretty 14-year-old boy! He made great art. He was a genius. However, he didn't do it on the Internet where there are laws about what can be shown. Bringing up a legion of famous painters of the past is NOT going to change the rules governing Internet commerce today. According to the TOS, no genitals can be displayed on figures which appear to be under the age of 18. What part of NO is so hard to understand????? That includes babies and toddlers and humanoids... not just fairies (this is not a war against winged folk! but adding wings is no excuse for breaking the rule repeatedly). The descriptions of nudity include sheer cloth... if you can see the crack of the crotch or the color of the nipples it isn't covered enough, and needs the nudity flag. If you can tell that it is a little boy or a little girl, it probably needs more coverage. If it is posed provocatively, it will also be pulled. So, yes, paintings in churches such as the Madonna nursing a naked-with-penis-showing baby Jesus would be pulled from this website... no matter how holy, reverent, or well-painted. Some of these images get refused as postage stamps, too... because various communities enforce even tougher decency standards. Saying "so-and-so does it" or "it is allowed at such-and-such a site" is totally irrelevant. It is not allowed here. Someone who has had a number of warnings (this is not a sudden or unforeseen event), even leading to banning, and still is shrilly rousing the rabble, directly or through surrogates, might want to consider thinking about community and disruption... or consider why she wants so badly to place her images where they are not allowed? She can take them to FairieWylde or some other site where naked kids can run freely and where the audience of viewers appreciate them. Or she can work to replace conservative people in government. Or she can write to the organizations which govern the banks and ask them to open the rulings. Any of those choices will do some good. She might also consider the idea that Renderosity's policies are affected by the laws of the State of Tennessee, the laws of the ISP/webhosts, the laws of the FCC (or how many other agencies get involved,) and the laws of PayPal and CitiBank and Visa and all the others who facilitate the transactions. Does she really want to bring down the entire site because Visa froze the accounts? PayPal has been known to act against other sites... this is not an idle threat on their behalf! Or maybe she'd prefer to have Ashcroft and several irate Congressmen cobble together even stiffer anti-child-pornography rules? If 20 people rise to her defense, she might feel vindicated... but if the community as a whole is damaged, what price such shallow victory? This stuff tends to snowball. The pendulum will swing (I remember the Summer of Love and the feeling that we could change the world). Carolly

I doubt anyone has seen the images in question that suddenly were in TOS violation. I have seen them and there were nothing that would have violated the TOS because there were no genitals showing on this images. Talking about something you haven't seen is pointless since you take the mod's word for it and constantly assume HS would have been doing anything that would justify their actions - she did NOT!

The last image showed a new dolly used on V3 with a H U G E square covering the lower area with a written link on it to another online store - and no, it was not a link to Renderotica (oops, can we say that). This is all just plain word is censored by the poster, fill in anything you might see fit! and nothing more. Some mods obviously enjoy the power given to them too much, me thinks.

Every organisation rests upon a mountain of secrets ~ Julian Assange

"She can take them to FairieWylde or some other site where naked kids can run freely and where the audience of viewers appreciate them."

Carolly, I would appreciate you stop such comments in future because they shed a bad light on our forum. I hope you consider this when you feel like comeing to FaerieWylde the next time because there is some freestuff to download ... or should I delete your membership?

Message edited on: 03/17/2005 06:06

Every organisation rests upon a mountain of secrets ~ Julian Assange

I may be confusing the merchant rules with the regular gallery rules, nevertheless: Is it not true that usage of censor tags and items similar to them is specifically forbidden since that provider debacle that forced the changes to the store? Not that they impacted what my son makes (thus far only a boat), but I recall reading that they were speciically prohibited. I also vaguely recall being told that the store rules were applied to some extent to the galleries -- but that one may have been a cynical expectation expressed in frustration.

Is there not some mechanism whereby a member who disputes a TOS violation decision by a mod or mods can appeal? If not.... maybe there should be. Jack

I have not seen such a mechanism, nor do I feel there should be. Strikes me as a waste of time -- either they can live with their decisions -- and we, as persons who agree to do so when we sign up, can do the same obviously, or we would not be signing up -- or they cannot. They want visits. If they cross the line enough, enough people will not do so, and they will change. This is much like how it was in the days of mining towns -- miners had to die, and it was ultimately court rulings that decided the outcome, not the occasional irate miner's revolt.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/index.ez?viewLink=193

Puntomaus, I have seen large chunks of her gallery... I had gallery duty here when I was on staff. I have also participated in many staff discussions here about whether certain images by a number of artists broke the TOS. Very few actually get reviewed in the staffroom and even fewer get pulled. It didn't matter if the work was good or whether it was art or whether it had been painted by a genius. A piece would be pulled if it was deemed by the staff to be in violation. The mods aren't out to stifle anybody's creativity, BUT they are supposed to uphold the rules of this particular site. Not FaerieWylde, not Renderotica, not RDNA, not DAZ... this site. A member who joins this site agrees to abide by the TOS. When a member uploads an image, they are asked to review the TOS... with a direct link. "Acceptable Image & Writing Guidelines Please review our TOS." One click. If an artist feels that the TOS is repressive, they can try to exhibit their images on another site with different rules, OR they can set up their own website and show whatever the hell they please on their own nickle. That is freedom. I'm linking to the TOS again. Someone might want to explain to her supporters that "false accusations" is a serious charge which might fall afoul of this part of the TOS: "Transmitting any libelous, defamatory, or any other material that could give rise to any civil or criminal liability under the law." Carolly

Wow, looks like it's been a long night in here...

First of all, Heart'Song was not the lone wolf when it came to posting figures of fae that ended up getting pulled. Many others have been asked to remove their images of fae that could be considered the bodies of humanoid characters under the age of 18. Giving a nude model that has the appearance of a small child, pre-teen, or teen wings does NOT make it ok, and it's not automatically a faerie. To tell you the honest truth, since I became a coordinator, the most beautiful pieces of fae art that I've seen here had wonderfully intricate clothing. Others have appeared to be nothing BUT an excuse to post naked kids with wings on.
Simple fact is, the TOS is clear on this:

"No depictions of young humanoid characters/children giving the appearance of being under the age of 18 where genitals are displayed and/or in erotic, seductive, provocative poses or context. Since age is difficult to identify with 3D images, this will be at the discretion of the Renderosity team."

hopefully, this won't go on as long as it did on Saturday. The point is, if you create a fae/cherub/other naked child character, at LEAST clothe or cover the groin area. AT THE VERY LEAST. Some that I've seen post naked fae children are great at creating props....why not take those modelling talents to make little fae clothing?
I really don't understand why we have to point out the TOS every 10 minutes sometimes. I mean, honestly....think about other sites...not just Poser related, either. When you join, you agree to abide by their rules. Sometimes, those rules may take away some of your expressive freedoms. That is because the internet is NOT a democracy, no matter where you go! Every website has a TOS to be followed, and when the rules are broken, there are only so many slaps on the wrist you can give. Heart'Song had a LOT. And, ya know what? They dated back a couple YEARS, so it's not like she's been singled out. ANYONE who posts an image of an humanoid character that is given the appearance of being underaged is at risk of having the image pulled. Heart'Song just happened to yell the loudest.

MorriganShadow
Poser Coordinator

*edited for clarity

Message edited on: 03/17/2005 06:34

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it into a fruit salad.

What part of NO is so hard to understand?

The part where a clothed figure with NO genitalia showing is targetted because there might be genitals under their clothes or something.

Seriously, an image where the figure was wearing a jewelled sort of bikini bottom. No hint of naughty bits anywhere. Pulled. The bottom "drew attention to the genitals". What kind of pervert looks at an image and thinks "Wow, I'll bet that fairy has GENITALS under that jewelled bottom!" and why are they the ones being catered to?

My point is NOT that the TOS shouldn't be followed, only that it should be clearly defined. Just what sort of clothes aren't figures allowed to wear?

The point is, if you create a fae/cherub/other naked child character, at LEAST clothe or cover the groin area.

Unless the covering you choose, which is not see through and is in no way erotic, makes certain viewers think about genitals.

bonni Message edited on: 03/17/2005 06:44

"When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch." - Bette Davis

LOL @ bonni

Do not use squares, one mod already refered to them as not appropriate clothes - even if they are huge, solid and opaque and cover everything. Squares is a big no no :P But I am not sure if this rule applies to triangles and circles too ...

Message edited on: 03/17/2005 06:49

Every organisation rests upon a mountain of secrets ~ Julian Assange

Maus RULES!

"Maus RULES!" Not here, unfortunately ;-)

Every organisation rests upon a mountain of secrets ~ Julian Assange

"But I am not sure if this rule applies to triangles and circles too ..." oh no - shapeisim :)

Pinky - you left the lens cap of your mind on again.

I think the miner's revolt, to use jcbwms example, would tire it self out faster if simply left alone. People will get tired soon enough and go back into the pits until the next cave in. Returning to quote the rules every 15 minutes only pisses people off more. I know that the PTB feel they're being maligned unjustly by the rabble but it copmes with the job. Repeating rule 13c subsection 2 paragraph 19 simply reminds people how much they feel that the rule wasn't broken. Disagreement, human nature no changing it, tomorrow's another day. That's the way I'd handle it at least, thank the Goddess it ain't my job. Hey, you boys over there, git that dang saloon gal down offn' that chandyleer! Gus, I said no horses in here damnit!

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

Ok, maybe we were wrong about the ONE image. ONE out of MANY that we had to review. From ONE gallery. Like I stated Saturday, until we can train computers to do our thinking for us, humans are monitoring the galleries. But, just because ONE gallery image among MANY had the genital area covered does not mean that Heart'Song was innocent. As for the box....we knew it was a protest, HOWEVER, covering the area with a box stating "Censored by Renderosity" is NOT following the TOS. It is being smarmy and thinking she could get away with it. We asked her to remove the image, or replace it with one that covered the genital area. Should we have been more clear? Possibly. Did we think that she would do that? Obviously not, otherwise we would have specifically told her to clothe the model. We are trying to see if we can make the rules more concise. When we do, we'll let you know. But, PLEASE, please, be patient with us. Changes take time. This isn't a life or death situation. A member broke the rules. Repeatedly. They got in trouble for it. Again, please be patient on any changes...things take time. MorriganShadow Poser Coordinator

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it into a fruit salad.

Ok, maybe we were wrong about the ONE image.

Well, at least you'll admit that much. ;-)

So, can I clothe my fairies in jeweled bottom thingies that might or might not draw attention to their genitals without getting banned? Just askin'. (And yes, I'm also teasing. I do NOT envy the job of moderator even a tiny little bit.)

Also, in my mind this isn't about innocence or guilt or anythign else. I just sincerely want to see the TOS enforced evenly, and I want to know what is and is not allowed, for my own information (I do obey the TOS to the best of my ability).

We are trying to see if we can make the rules more concise.

Good. Thank you.

But, PLEASE, please, be patient with us. Changes take time.

Oh, I've been around here long enough to know that. It took months of constant complaining just to get them to fix a problem with the site design that was causing problems for people, making pages not load, etc. I can only imagine how long it would take to tighten up the Terms of Service.

I also think it would be wise to institute a policy of sending both an email and a PM to people who are receiving warnings. In the case of Heart'Song, her spam filter (which was installed and is maintained by her ISP as far as I can tell) caught all of the previous warnings, and apparently not one admin or mod bothered to follow up on it.

MorriganShadow, I, for one, know that this is NOT something you personally did or anything of the sort. The lack of communication, of follow up, of even TOS enforcement, etc., has been around long before you stepped into the unenviable position of moderator. You've just had the misfortune of having to deal with the trouble caused by this instance of Renderositism. ;-)

bonni Message edited on: 03/17/2005 07:19

"When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch." - Bette Davis

It's always been my belief that my complete freedom of speech and expression applies only to MY web site (where the ultimate responsibility for content belongs to me). When a web site reaches the size of Renderosity, it becomes more businesslike, can't be helped. It assumes responsibility to advertisers, merchants, and a host of others including the community it resides in as well as the community it serves. Compromises' are unavoidable. I actually find it refreshing that those who disagree are able to voice their disagreement so strongly. :-) In the words of the great thinker, Yogi Berra- "Nobody goes there, it's always too crowded."

In my reading of those now locked threads, it seems one moderator in particular has unilaterraly rewritten the TOS.
Where the TOS states "...no genitals..."
This moderator (and perhaps others) reads "...no genital area..."
Hence an image with no genitals can be banned!

This seems to have been done without consultation. No other moderator has corrected him/her. Instead those threads have unprofessional sniping and belittling (from moderators)
The section of TOS was posted again and again by moderators with aspersions on others intelligence if they continued to protest, without the realisation that it was the moderator who was reading something that was not there.

If you want something to be read between the lines you should write between them.

Message edited on: 03/17/2005 07:38

regards
pk
www.planit3d.com

bonni, When a member is warned, when an image is pulled, or anything like that which is formal and disciplinary, they are sent both the IM and the email. Some of that, as in removal of images from the gallery, is automated. Members are responsible for keeping their email addresses up-to-date. 300,000 members and this site can't pester folks to change the address of record when members get new email accounts or watch their spam filters. If Heart'Song was getting the newsletter and the ebots and the notices that people had commented on her gallery images, she would have been getting the emails from staff members, too. Carolly

As I understand it, the admin@renderosity address was automatically allowed through, but individual "new" addresses weren't. I know that I had to answer a "challenge" to get mail past the filter there. I wasn't aware that IMs were also sent. Hmm. Curiouser and curiouser. bonni

"When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch." - Bette Davis

Same shit, different day. It's really not that difficult to make your own webpages with your own galleries goverened only by your own TOS answering to no one but yourself. **Shrugs

Message edited on: 03/17/2005 07:52

"she would have been getting the emails from staff members, too." If you've read the other threads you would know that she said more than one time that those emails were not send from a renderosity mail addy but from the mods own email addy. While mails from renderosity.com get through others might not. So, not her fault when someone sends an official mail using a private mail addy.

Every organisation rests upon a mountain of secrets ~ Julian Assange

Not wanting to walk into a fire storm, but realizing that saying nothing also says a lot.....
I think that this has gone too far...censureship seems to be invading every part of our society as of late, and I am disheartened to see it creeping in to our artistic communities as well.
I also want to say, that as a comsumer (and believe me when I say that I spend a lot on Poser)...I am not good enough yet to become a merchant...If given the choice, I choose to buy my stuff from those stores that DO still value artistic licience....and the right to make art as the artist sees fit.
I too have seen the art in question, and as the mother of a young child, found nothing wrong, or bad. These were not child porn, nor were they sexually suggestive. I thought they were rather beautiful.
Virginia

Message edited on: 03/17/2005 08:01

.

...faith, trust and pixiedust

Virginia, a lot of people feel the same way. I think that is part of the problem. It's not Renderosity's fault necessarily, simply an unfortunate intersection of events. Because of other things going on in society, politics etc. a lot of people are already feeling dismayed, depressed, threatened whatever. It's easy to see things like the incident in question as part of something bigger, just another insult added to injury. That may not be fair, the owners of this site may be flaming liberals or completely apolitical but it will still be perceived on some level as part of a process that people are unhappy with. As a result, what might in another time be just another crazy 'Rosity flap perhaps takes on a deeper emotional significance and makes some people more prickly than they might have been otherwise. Maybe I'm over analysing but that's the way I see it and I certainly sense some of that in myself. That's why I said I think the best thing for the PTB to do would be to let people have their say (which to their credit they mostly do) and avoid rereading the rulebook as if somehow the umpteenth time they do it all dissent will cease. They've made their decision, justified it to their satisfaction and nothing will change the fact that some folks will always think that decision stinks. If they're working on the policy, fine, come back when it's reworked and let us know what it is. No one's talking about truck bombing Rendo HQ. Anyone who wants to leave has left already. Chill. "You can't run a coal mine without machine guns." - Mine owner replying to Claire Booth Luce's question about the presence of armed guards at his mine.

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

"What part of NO is so hard to understand?"

"The part where a clothed figure with NO genitalia showing is targetted because there might be genitals under their clothes or something."

Lol, Bonni we think alike. That was my response when I read that, damn near word for word. ;)

And that's the point. Not what other sites allow, not what you'll find from the old Masters works and not how many warnings may or may not have been recieved.
It's entirely how the TOS is perceived by someone in the position to issue warnings and bannings.
If no genitals were showing then how could the TOS have been broken?

And that's the question no mods are answering.

...... Kendra

I usually avoid these discussions like the black plague, but I have to point out that Renderosity is not making a moral judgment here, it is a commercial one. In the beginning Renderosity did not have a marketplace at all, it was merely some forums and galleries. When the store was added, it was added on the same existing site, and therein lies the problem. With over 1600 merchants here and I am sure quite a HUGE PayPal account, they are not going to risk having that account confiscated (yes, PayPal DOES THAT) and so for the most part they are forced from a business standpoint to tone it down or have quite a large sum of money tied up in limbo for literally months. If the store site and forum/galleries occupied different URLs, they would not have to be so strict. They were not in the past so strict when most of the images in question were originally posted. What happened? Some self-righteous smarmy asswipe complained about Renderosity to PayPal, so Renderosity came to be in the unenviable position of having to crack down on nudity of any sort, especially young looking characters.

I can assure those would-be witch-hunters that they have scored no victory here as far as getting images pulled: it is mainly a business decision where Renderosity is looking out for their own commercial interests (as any business owner would do), nothing more, though admittedly a moderator or two may have gotten a bit overzealous in his/her interpretation of the TOS. My store at faerie-dreams.com does not allow any more nudity than is allowed in the store here, and that is because it is a BUSINESS, not primarily an ART SITE. Check out the PayPal terms of service (only a few hundred pages, hyperlinked) or ask around here for PayPal horror stories of accounts being frozen for the slip of a naked tit and you will perhaps get the idea. Renderosity is a BUSINESS with forums and galleries attached, NOT the other way around.

In closing, since my site name was carelessly associated with this distasteful business, a clarification. FaerieWylde allows more nudity because the store and the forum are on 2 different URLs, 2 different domains, 2 different servers, even 2 different countries, but even so, sexual images of any kind or any age have been and will be deleted at FaerieWylde as well. I can heartily assure you that it has nothing to do with local ordinances, as we are in the same city as Renderosity (about 2 miles down the road, in fact). However, any creeps thinking they can come over to FaerieWylde and post any nasty nekkid kids-with-wings pictures they like will quickly find out otherwise. The images that were pulled here do NOT violate our TOS as there was merely nudity and no sexuality involved.

My, my, my.....how threads can grow overnight. Like mushrooms in the backyard. (I remember the Summer of Love and the feeling that we could change the world). Immediately following the end of WWII, during a brief (very brief) window of time -- a lot of starry-eyed people thought the same thing. Human nature -- including our own -- has a way of destroying our youthful "we can save the world" illusions about ourselves. The experience can be quite traumatic and devastating. It's one reason why a lot of people end up being so bitter in their later years. *********************************************************** As for the central point of this thread -- Renderosity can set their own rules, and the admins can then enforce them in any way that they see fit. For our part -- given that set of rules -- we can decide for ourselves whether we wish to participate in the community -- or not. It's entirely up to the individual. If they won't let me post images that they find questionable for various reasons -- so be it. I'm not going to get all huffy over the issue. Life's too short to spend it getting upset all of the time. Upset comes enough on its own. I don't need to help it along. My attitude about myself (and my "art" -- such as it is) shouldn't be affected by the attitudes of others towards me. If I allow them such power over my own well-being, then I might as well resign. So......if an admin chooses to delete my posts from the gallery......shrug.........who cares? Maybe somebody does, but I don't. I'll just go elsewhere, and post my stuff there. And not worry about it. *********************************************************** Starting "agenda" threads in the forum won't win you any Kewpie (cupie?) dolls.....except from the few people that happen to agree with you already. And that's hardly worth the effort -- other than to merely express one's rage against the unfairness of the world. Which accomplishes exactly nothing. .......other than to take a toll on your own health and emotional well-being.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

.

Pinky - you left the lens cap of your mind on again.

HeartSong has started posting a few of her pics at;

rendervisions.com

Where for artist-by artist really does mean something.

Message edited on: 03/17/2005 13:29

.

I can't add much here, I do find Thornes post very interesting and I have been hearing from other site owners that thats the way to go, separate urls for the store and the art. That way art CAN be art. I was asked to remove one image once and though it hurt to do so I did. The Mod then got back to me and admitted that they had jumped the gun a bit and made a mistake on the image. I found that very gracious.I could have reuploaded it but never got around to it. I haven't been following all that seems to been happening but if this is about Heart'Songs images and if she stops posting here that will be depressing, I sure enjoying getting notice that she has uploaded a new image. Thanks :)

I hate faerie art & think it's childish & shouldn;t be here at all not with all the adult stuff. Looks stupid to have children art mixed with adult art. It should be all adult, problem solved.

LOL Thanks for the imput Birddie. I will allow others more eloquent than I argue the point. I will just say that though I'm grey and shuffle along with a cane I hope I never lose my childishness. :)

Eeek Jon, you call that input LOL ... and if someone has found the adult stuff anywhere over here please send me the link, I like to have a look at it too ... :P

Every organisation rests upon a mountain of secrets ~ Julian Assange

LOL... Slip me the link if you get it Maus. LOL

------------------------------------------------------------- "However, any creeps thinking they can come over to FaerieWylde and post any nasty nekkid kids-with-wings pictures they like will quickly find out otherwise." ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hmm... I was invited by a friend to visit the"Wylde" and was frankly appalled by what I read & saw. I read statements like: "I had to create some custom morphs to giver her body that pleasing shape" and that "pleasing shape" is clearly that of an eight ear old girl !!. pointy ears. "fae"wings and 800 year old bogus cover story not withstanding . @Xeno: you are so right my like minded friend, in pointing out the folly of coming, or sending cronies, into the poser forum seeking to rally an angry mob of villagers to take up pitch forks and torches to storm your "enemies' castle on behalf of ones cause. Just Ask Anton Kissel , or the great "Dodger" or any other would be conqeror of the evil rosity,DAZ Empire, about the public relations effectiveness of such crusades.

My website

YouTube Channel

As far as I am concerned, there is nothing inherently wrong with most images of naked children (fur rugs, bathtubs, fishing holes). I think bras on mermaids are ridiculous and that clothes on a flying creature will probably act as a drag and get tangled in the thickets. Sexually provocative images are another matter. I find using and exploiting digital children in a sexual manner simply to get hits on an image as distasteful as I'd find exploiting any other type of pornography (including the pornography of violence). The combination of innocence and sexuality must be tremendously erotic to judge from the childish faces and childish bodies in full provocative display. There is a desire for such imagery, or else it wouldn't exist... and the people making kiddieporn would find something else to sell. Instead of pouty-mouthed Lolitas, we might get some mature character packs. HOWEVER, my own preferences aside, I am in favor of following the given, announced, and agreed-to rules of this website. I am here by permission of the site owners. I visit the other sites by their permission. Only on my own site would I feel free to say exactly what I want. Corporate property is just that. Property. Theirs and their rules. A website is property... and you are invited to enter or told to leave. My personal opinion as to nudity doesn't matter the least little bit. If I walk into the DeYoung or the Legion of Honor or any of the other world class art museums here, I am not allowed to hang my own images, photograph theirs, talk loudly, touch anything, disturb the peace, bring in food, walk around naked, have sex in the outside pool, yell through a bullhorn that they discriminate against x, or a hundred other infractions. Their property, their rules, and they have the right to remove anybody not following their rules... any claims to artistic freedom aside. Seven nude kids painted the colors of the rainbow wouldn't be able to walk their galleries, no matter how artistically painted or if Picasso signed each of them on the butt or if the Pope specially blessed them in their innocence. This website is a commercial property and has to follow the rules set out by many, many other companies and legislators. People who persist in violating those rules just make it harder for everyone else. People who persist in rousing the rabble to soothe their own bruised egos just leave a bad smell in the air. Carolly the Opinionated

Human nature -- including our own -- has a way of destroying our youthful "we can save the world" illusions about ourselves. The experience can be quite traumatic and devastating. It's one reason why a lot of people end up being so bitter in their later years. Actually, I found the realization to be a relief. It IS just the way the world is, and to quote the Eagles, things in this life change very slowly if they ever change at all. bonni

"When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch." - Bette Davis

.

Pinky - you left the lens cap of your mind on again.

Thank you Carolly <---signature---> nemirc Animation and Poser Forum

nemirc
Renderosity Magazine Staff Writer
https://renderositymagazine.com/users/nemirc
https://about.me/aris3d/

And don't forget People who enforce those rules have to interpret those rules as written and should not create their own rules on the fly and read between the lines of those rules. get the point?!

---

---

Software: Daz Studio 4.15,  Photoshop CC, Zbrush 2022, Blender 3.3, Silo 2.3, Filter Forge 4. Marvelous Designer 7

Hardware: self built Intel Core i7 8086K, 64GB RAM,  RTX 3090 .

"If you spend too much time arguing about software, you're spending too little time creating art!" ~ SomeSmartAss

"A critic is a legless man who teaches running." ~ Channing Pollock

My Gallery  My Other Gallery 

(Waves) :] Fish (It's my birthday today - 49!! - so I will NOT get uptight and join in the fracas. I'll just watch for a while and then go have a piece of chocolate cake)

Happy Bday, Fish :) and enjoy your party and the cake and if you don't eat all of it send it my way ;-)

Every organisation rests upon a mountain of secrets ~ Julian Assange

Yes...yes...oh God yes... Chocolate cake with a big scoop of Ben&Jerry double chocolate fudge ice cream sprinkled with shaved Godiva dark chocolate (very immoral). Happy B-day Fish! SWAMP (.)(.) |) (| ( v ) | /

Swamp, you forgot the nudity tag or are you just trying to push the envelope of ASCII art? Nice set of parentheses though.

It's fortunate that (at least some of the time) the peeves and shibboleths of various individuals aren't catered to, otherwise the galleries would be empty. What should we remove next? The fractals-ridiculous computer generated non-art, garish fantasy alien landscapes-buy a Bonstell book and learn to make it look credible, dragons-spare me, cute 'toon animals-grow up, flowing maned Fabio clones-maybe The Advocate would like them, religious art-not interested in your favorite cult, clothed Vickys-if you're afraid of nudity, move to Saudi Arabia.

Let me know when you've removed those and I'll probably have another list.

Message edited on: 03/18/2005 10:35

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

Now there is a worthy topic!! Fish's Birthday. :) Hope you have a very good B-Day, Fish.:)

Happy birthday Fish......

Veels geluk Fish - I'll have some of that cake too please :)

...faith, trust and pixiedust

Okay, I am poking my head in here one last time just to say that IMO, Heart'Song is a talented and very original styled artist, and if she was banned for images that were already here she should have been given a warning to remove them first. The point is the images were here already, and despite 300,000 members yes it takes what? 30 seconds? To add email verification that a message is received. As I said this is a really talented artist, and deserves better treatment imho. Not trying to start any war here, just putting in my 2 cents worth for someone I admire.

Thorne, How many warnings did she need? emails, IMs, and phone calls? This was not a sudden move, but something which has gone on since last year at least. Bannings are given for a repeated pattern of flaunting the rules. You don't get banned unless you continue to ignore the warnings and repeat the offensive behavior a number of times. That is in the TOS. As mentioned above, talent has NOTHING to do with it. Even Picasso or Michaelangelo or Ingres or Rembrandt or any other deservedly great artist can't post images of children with their genitals showing in the galleries at this website. No genitals on underage figures. The treatment of the subject has nothing to do with it. Even the Pope can't hang a naked baby Jesus here or putti with wings... it doesn't matter if it is human, faerie, or godling, with insect wings or angel wings or no wings at all. No genitals on underage figures. Prettiness or ugliness has nothing to do with it. No genitals on underage figures. This website is a private, commercial website which has to follow rules established by other entities, including the government and the banks. The artists who join this site agree to follow rules. The artists who post to the galleries agree to follow rules. Why should an exception be made? Why should Heart'Song or any other aggrieved artist feel that they don't have to follow the rules they signed? As evidenced at PoserPros last month, even site owners (who may have a valid claim to special treatment) have to follow the rules. When posting on your website, I follow your rules, just as I would if I were in your livingroom. Posting on my own website, I can follow my own. Someone who doesn't like rules can buy a domain name and set up a gallery for very little money and effort. Heart'Song is at complete liberty to make her own gallery and post as many naked children as she wants in it... just not on this site. Carolly

The rules were assigned after the images had been in gallery for awhile. The rules came after the image At least give the artist some professioanl courtesy or time to remove an image that wasn't breaking the rules when it was put up at the first place.

---

---

Software: Daz Studio 4.15,  Photoshop CC, Zbrush 2022, Blender 3.3, Silo 2.3, Filter Forge 4. Marvelous Designer 7

Hardware: self built Intel Core i7 8086K, 64GB RAM,  RTX 3090 .

"If you spend too much time arguing about software, you're spending too little time creating art!" ~ SomeSmartAss

"A critic is a legless man who teaches running." ~ Channing Pollock

My Gallery  My Other Gallery 

I think perhaps many people are not aware of all the details of what goes/went on behind the scenes with these things, and neither do I. I just wanted to publicly show my support for a friend, and I do understand, Carolly, that you are enforcing rules that are in place primarily for business reasons, rules that are not yours personally.

I agree with those who say these kinds of discussions have little constructive value, and that is the main reason I usually stay out of them. I've been in the same position and had complaints, and had these threads started with narrow minded concepts from some who may have never seen the inside of a real art museum, where subjects of all ages occupy many galleries, including the National Art Museum in Washington DC and of course the grand master of museums, the Louvre in Paris. We can't expect the part-time hobbyist to see it from the same perspective as those of us who have had formal college art training and have studied art for quite some years.

But as you have said and we do understand, this is not about grand masters or museums or segregating art galleries by age, race, sex, or any other of the closed boxes that some people have such a hard time thinking outside of. That is not the point, nor the focus of this discussion. The merit of the work is not in question (there will always be admirers and detractors of any artwork), it's about rules and the equitable application of those rules, or the preceived lack thereof. This is not directed to Carolly or anyone personally, because I honestly do not know who was personally involved.

To that I will only say again that Heart'Song a talented artist, but she is also a sensitive human being and I think she genuinely meant no harm or malice; she was literally in tears over this and I understand her frustration. Hopefully we can calmly all work together to reach some closure on this matter. There was breakdown in the system as I understand it, and perhaps incidents like these can help us to see where the glitches and ambiguities lie in the system and remedy those in a constructive way. I'm very sad to see her gallery has been removed, but that is her decision and everyone should be where they feel comfortable.

Hokksdottir, to repeat Heart'songs point as I under stood it before her threads were censored, it wasn't aboout OBEYING the rules, it was about the rules being understood by the VERY PEOPLE WHO WROTE THEM and enforcing them AS THEY WERE WRITTEN!!!!! The tos bans any genitalia on a child, understandably. I have NEVER, EVER, NOT ONE TIME seen ANY genitals on any of Heart'song's pictures of child elves. NOT ONE TIME!!! Do the moderators mean "pelvic area"? If they did, they should say "pelvic area"! To arbitrarily go back two years and start removing pictures that were previously ok is the equivalent of the FCC going bact to three year old radio shows and fining the staions for the shows that were perfectly fine for the previous three years!! IT seems the least we as a society should expect from those who write rules is that they understand what they themselves are writing! How difficult should that be?! If you can't figure out what you mean when you're writing a rule how should anyone else figure out what the hell you're talking about??? I know some wag will see this and lament "why is a newbie commenting on OUR business", so let's be very clear about this. Is there a rule that states I have to have been here for a certain time before I can comment? How long? One week? A month? A year? Does it matter if I've been involved in art and graphics since I was a child (in my fifties now) or that I've been viewing these galleries for about three years now or that I've been concerned with the censoreship tone the entire nation seems to be gripped in lately. I admit that as a mere STORE and not an art gallery Renderosity has the absolute right to post whatever rules it wants to, but YOU SHOULD BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE STATING, not write one thing and then tell the artists "yeah, but we meant this". Specially when bandying about terms like "child porn". And I agree one hundred percent with Thorne, it's about the equitable application of the rules. Also, Heart'song did NOT remove her galleries. They were removed by the moderators. Just to get that clear.

I was not aware of the extent to which this debacle had progressed, or that all of Heart'Songs beautiful and unique galleries had been forcibly removed- how utterly dispicable and narrow minded. This is akin to swatting a fly with a rocket powered grenade. for some reason the term "jackbooted thugs" also comes to mind. Way to overkill, mods. :rolls eyes: I think ol' Uncle Albert said it best, "Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions. Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity...and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein

What a shame! I would call it victory of the blockheads but since that could be seen as a personal attack, name calling or violating the TOS I decided to better keep it to myself.

Every organisation rests upon a mountain of secrets ~ Julian Assange

I still consider myself a novice with my poser images, and I dare not classify my art with hers, but one of the reasons I come to this site is because of the work of artists like Heartsong. I have to say hers are some of my favorite images. Her originality and style often get my creative juices to flow, so to speak, and has been an inspiration to me in my own artwork. Without works such as these, I am much less inclined to come here.....and I consider the removal of Heartsongs gallery a loss to us all.

I understand that Heart'Song has been permanently banned and her entire gallery removed (we're talking over 500 images built up over a four year period). Presumably 495 weren't, in the opinion of the Mods, in violation of the TOS. This is a shameful act of vandalism. Nasty, too.

That part of the TOS has been in place for more than TWO years. Warnings were given over months and months and months. How long does it take an artist to realize that the law applies to them? And if anybody here really wants to see all images before the worst offenders get pulled (this includes the anal-reaming hetero couples, babies tortured and dismembered, 12-year-old sex kittens nursing other naked children, and some of the other stuff the mods have deemed against the rules), they can volunteer to join the staff. Until you've had to pass judgement and defend that judgement, you don't know hard hard it is. Until you wade through 200 images posted in a single day, you don't know what drudgery is. Until you listen to the feedback from screaming artists that they are special and don't deserve to have the rules applied to them, you don't know what blockheadedness (to use Puntomaus's term) is. I'm sure that it is very comforting to Heart'Song to see that she has some ardent friends and supporters... including people joining this site just to complain about the enforcement of the rules in her case. But wouldn't it have been better to follow the rules in the first place? Carolly

Ummm, could it be that Heart'Song has "friends and supporters" because she's a caring, friendly, generous person? Sadly she can't see this thread for herself .. she's been banned. You sure Moderators volunteer? You make it sound like a punishment, what with all the screaming artists, the drudgery, the illegal hard-core, and folk complaining all the time. I understand the difficult and unrewarded job they do .. doesn't change the fact that Heart has been treated rather harshly in the circumstances. IMHO, of course. Oh, and you might want to edit your message a bit, Carolly. By listing examples of highly unpleasant pictures you've seen in a post about a banned member rather implies that she produced similar themes in her work. Unfortunately, members can't check the level of depravity in Heart's pictures .. they've all been deleted. Thanks for your co-operation .. wouldn't want you to accidentally violate the TOS with your helpful input, would we? mooch

"And if anybody here really wants to see all images before the worst offenders get pulled (this includes the anal-reaming hetero couples, babies tortured and dismembered, 12-year-old sex kittens nursing other naked children, and some of the other stuff the mods have deemed against the rules), they can volunteer to join the staff." What does this have to do with HS? Nothing of what you listed can be found in any of her images. So why mention what OTHER MEMBERS have done in THEIR images that got pulled and/or banned? By listing those disgusting examples in a thread about HS, it implies that she had these things in her images. That is not only NOT true but also just low on your part.

. :/

How long does it take to convey an idea?!! The idea was NEVER that a rule applies to Heart'Song. The idea is that the moderators are NOT CONSISTENT with their interpretation of the rules they are supposed to be moderating! THAT IS THE POINT!!! SHE ABSOLUTELY FOLLOWED THE RULES!! There is NO MENTION of "PELVIC AREA" in the TOS. There is a rule banning the showing of gelitalia on child-like figures, a rule I HEARTILY AGREE WITH, but there were absoultely NO genitals on the child elves in Heart'Song's work! How long will it take for you to get this??! What was the infraction? Suggestive pics? LOOK AT THE GALLERY! It's FULL of suggestive work, at least in my opinion. Of course one man's sugestive is another man's art. See City of Cincinatti vs Cincinatti Museum of Art/Mapplethorpe Exibit. I am a rule person. I served SIX YEARS in the Air Force and I did very well there. But the people enforcing those rules have to, at the very least, understand what the rules are they're enforcing. Heart'Song's mistreatment begins because the moderators can't understand what the rules say. Are there rules against pelvic regions? NO!!! And by the way, I agree whole heartedly with "TdaC" and "Zrincx". Shame on you for associating Heart'Song's work with the vile stuff you mentioned!! That in itself is a VILE, reprehensible act! And BTW... I joined this forum to comment on the unfair and shabby way an artist was treated...I ALWAYS get into forums and letter writing campaigns when I see a gross injustice stupidly committed! A people loses most of their rights one tiny piece at a time, slowly and insidiously, and it starts on little forums like this all over the country. This wasn't even an issue of idealogy or sensibility. It was an issue of the people who are enforcing the rules arbitrarily applying those rules because they cannot grasp what they are reading. Including Carolly!!! And as I stated before, if there is a rule barring new forum members from commenting then let me know. I AM a rules guy. But BE EXPLICIT! I don't want to be caught up in the stupidity that ensnared Heart'Song. I won't be on this forum much longer, I promise. Oh, and I saw a lament a few days ago about "what can we do?". Well, I NEVER, ever shop at Wal-Mart. And I believe with all my heart they have the ABSOLUTE right to ban items from their store. I also have the right to not drop my hard-earned dollars there. If they want to ban material they consider "subservisive" and "unsuitable", like say, ohhhh..GEORGE CARLIN'S BOOK, that is definitely their prerogative. I shop at other bookstores. And so can you. I am heartened by all those who wrote to defend Heart'Song. All you courageous and conscientious artists, good luck. You are outnumbered.

Twhack! Miss Calliope Havisham brought the rod crashing onto her calfskin bound copy of the Book of Student Discipline. Twhack, Twhack, Twhack! The vibration of the limber hickory made her hand tingle. She couldn't understand it. Never in the years since she had come to the tiny village of Rendon had the pupils been so headstrong, so dismissive of the rules. She must regain order, no matter what. The rules must be followed. "Rule number one," she began for the tenth time... Twhack! The sniggering continued, grew in volume. Twhack, Twhack! The tingling traveled up her arm and suffused through her, stirring a strange spark somewhere in the depths of her womanhood. "Rule numner one, No student shall..." Twhack! Most of them looked at her with amusement, all except Clive. Clive, the intelligent, quiet, one had an odd look of knowing in his heavy lidded eyes. Twhack! Her tongue brushed quickly over her parched lips. Why was it so warm in here? The rules, must remember the rules. They were everything. Twhack! Her bosom heaved against the confining whalebone of her corset. It was no use. They would never listen. And yet, she must continue, even at the cost of her soul. Twhack! From Memoirs of A Country Schoolmistress by Unknown ca. 1820

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

Naughty boy. Go stand in the corner! All books by 'Anon', 'Unknown' or silly pseudonyms like Ivor Biggun are forbidden. Shameful and lascivious creature. It is quite warm in here, actually. And there is definitely heaving happening.

RE:darth_tar wote; I agree whole heartedly with "TdaC" and "Zrincx". What? I was here allright, but sitting in the corner down at the back all the time, and I swear I didnt make any noise! -which cant be said about certain others. This is yet another alarming and frustrating faerie holocaust in progress. Poor HeartSong babie.

The work in question has been attributed to both Sir Buster Cherry and Lord I.P. Freely. Computer lexical analysis has ruled out both as the author. B U L L E T I N We interrupt this program for the latest bulletin from the Culture Wars: "Several Imax theaters, including some in science museums, are refusing to show movies that mention the subject - or the Big Bang or the geology of the earth - fearing protests from people who object to films that contradict biblical descriptions of the origin of Earth and its creatures." UPI We have received reports that Renderosity admins view the imminent arrival of Poser 6 with the same relief Tom Delay felt at the removal of Teri Schiavo's feeding tube. All questions were referred to the firm's legal representatives Dewey, Chetham and Howe, who declined to comment. We now return you to your regularly scheduled broadcast.

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

"Prettiness or ugliness has nothing to do with it. No genitals on underage figures."

And the fact that there were no genitals? I see that fact continuing to go unanswered. Why are the mods so afraid to discuss that?

...... Kendra

"Why are the mods so afraid to discuss that?"

I think because they never discuss anything. They made a "decision", a wrong and extremely stupid decision in this case, and prolly hope it will be forgotten very soon.

Oops, forgot the rules:

Rule 1: the "mods" are always right
Rule 2: in case the "mods" are not right Rule 1 will be applied automatically.
Rule 3: discussing TOS with "mods" is verboten and will lead to a permanent ban if you do not shut up after they told you so.

Every organisation rests upon a mountain of secrets ~ Julian Assange

Ordnung muss sein! "Ich bin ein knoblauch" -in the kitchen of insanity, here money rules and therefore, I shall fall.
:R. Polanski/D. Hamilton/Zrincx.

Order must be! "I am a garlic" - Babblefish

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

And in light of the new guidlines post I'd say it proves the banned member was right to be confused at the warning and is owed an apology for this whole mess. It proves the TOS wasn't clear enough and the member didn't deserve the banning.

Will they admit it?

...... Kendra

Just Ask Anton Kissel , or the great "Dodger"
or any other would be conqeror of the evil rosity,DAZ
Empire, about the public relations effectiveness of such crusades.

Since he works with us, we did ask Dodger. He says they do tend to create short term boosts of sales but they don't last terribly long. He imagines that when they're insincere this probably doesn't happen to the same extreme.

Anton seems to agree, as does Merrilyn, based on past correspondence.

All in all, working together is more effective over the long term, but really you should follow your heart. Enemies aren't a good thing, but sometimes you have them, and to pretend you don't and that they are your friends is just as smarmy as making fake enemies.

Truth may not conquer all the time, but you feel a lot better about it in the long run.

Ask Bryan Brandenburg about the public relations effectiveness of pretending you're friends with people you despise. Message edited on: 03/29/2005 15:18

I'm the asshole. You wanna be a shit? You gotta go through ME.

"Bryan Brandenburg" Please elaborate. A quick search shows he has worked with Daz & Zyzote. Always happy to hear examples of hypocrisy gone sour :-)

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

OK, let's keep this civil, shall we?

---

Jeff

Renderosity Senior Moderator

Hablo español

Ich spreche Deutsch

Je parle français

Mi parolas Esperanton. Ĉu vi?

A nude figure is defined by more than just showing genitals. The new TOS are meant to be more clear to the members. I don't see why a member should be confused at a warning message. Still watching... <---signature---> nemirc Animation Forum

nemirc
Renderosity Magazine Staff Writer
https://renderositymagazine.com/users/nemirc
https://about.me/aris3d/

"Ask Bryan Brandenburg about the public relations effectiveness of pretending you're friends with people you despise." I take this as referring to how hypocrisy "...pretending you're friends with people you despise." may not be the best course. I was asking for more details on just what the comment referred to. If that is being uncivil, sorry but I fail to see it. Maybe I've stumbled on some Bryan Brandenburg (whoever the heck he is) taboo but it's really getting hard to tell what will get you in trouble for saying here.

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

lmckenzie, Bryan wrote a book on how to become a millionaire in the computer biz. He is/was the founder and managing partner of Vertical Marketing Management Group (vmmg). He was the Chief Profit Officer at DAZ. He is currently the CEO of Zygote. He has more than 20 years experience in making money, often with concurrent companies, if you check the dates. In a capitalist society, he can be considered successful. I'll refrain from commenting and let him speak for himself: **************** "You'll learn how to calculate the lifetime value of your client so that you'll know how much you can spend to acquire a new client and make a profit over the life of that client." "This section covers the tools of influence; the things you can use that get buyers to say yes automagically." "How to maximize the profitability on every client" http://www.vmmg.net/ http://www.vmmg.net/products/purchase-million-dollar-computer-consultant.shtml ********** "What if you were able to have access to your competitor's web statistics? What if you knew how much traffic they had, the average number of page views, what other sites their visitors went to? What if you could tell how successful a campaign was or if their recent press release had any impact? Would that be a strategic advantage?" http://www.hotlib.com/articles/show.php?t=Internet_Nielsen_Reports ****** "As a manager of people you should pay attention to how you and the company are taking care of people from the perspective of Maslows Hierarchy of Needs. Almost all resistance and motivation issues can be traced to your employees not getting their needs met." http://www.vmmg.net/resources/employee_human_needs.shtml ************* "This formula allows you to accurately project what a customer is worth to you over their customer life cycle." http://www.successfuloffice.com/the-value-of-a-customer.htm ********* Resistance. Resistance is a trained reaction developed over many experiences with sales people. If there was no resistance, the customer would be buying everything that people were selling and would be out of business or broke. The best way to address resistance in a customer is not to push against it, until it has softened. The resistance is an adversarial position, so you must become their partner and trusted advisor. Give the general solutions to their problem with no expectations of reimbursement. Brainstorm and demonstrate that you have their best interests at heart and the resistance will soften and go away. http://www.theallineed.com/business/05013004.htm ******************** link with his picture: http://www.vmmg.net/news/zygote-media-group.shtml Google on "Bryan Brandenburg" with the quotes and you can find all sorts of nuggets. There are some that I'd love to follow up on, but this old beastie times out before the pages open, or I've already blocked the cookies and refused the spyware (the marketing/advertising sites). :sigh: There is one article where he talks about deliberately shedding the least profitable customers, so that effort can be concentrated upon the cash cows, but I can't find it now. Carolly

Sounds like a mixture of common sense, psychology and BizSkool 101. Applied correctly, I can see how he became rich.

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken