Well, I finally had an image "pulled from the Gallery" by Angel1 who says that Thorne's V3 Perelandra is a minor and "in violation of our Child Nudity Guidelines". I'll have you hypocritical admins know that NO Child has breasts like that, I was very careful Not to reduce them so as to make her look like a "minor". Now you are all just attacking faeiries and fantasy on a whim. Now you have insulted me greatly! FINE there are many other galleries to post to out there, as a matter of fact my recent post "Do You Believe?" is indeed posted at 3DCommune, RunTimeDNA, and Rendervisions, all of whom do NOT see 'child pornography' in it....so what is does that say about these new over-jealous moderators of Renderosity???? So pray tell me, all mighty admins, just what constitutes "the appearance of being under the age of 18"? Seeing as how my character was Victoria 3 and had breasts larger then ANY minor, then just what pray tell are you basing your judgment on?? (besides your own prejudices)

Huh?!!! Last time I loaded up V3 she sure as heck did not look like a minor. What gives? PM me with the details if they're too salacious for the forum.

Funny as there was another faerie image posted the same day where the nipples were showing through her thin top. So it must not be the "appearance of being under the age of 18" as stated in the TOS (appearance generaly bing of 'body') but it must be that 'No character shall have a young looking face, or eyes, or ???' What is the art community coming to when they attach innocent faeries who, in the image comments, even state: "note to 'dis-believers': This is a Faerie, she is over 350 years old. This is NOT pornography nor is it child porn." Frankly I find this a personal attack, one of which I find very insulting as I do NOT do porn, especially child porn...heck, I have two daughters and a grand daughter of my own!!

"...just what constitutes "the appearance of being under the age of 18"?" Hi igohigh, Since age is difficult to identify with 3D images, this will be at the discretion of the Renderosity team. To give you an idea of how we ascertain this, we go by indicators such as facial appearance, body appearance, hand/foot/head ratio to torso and overall presentation (e.g. is the figure in a playroom or wearing a school uniform or a setting which would indicate a child.) The base mesh used may not be an indicator of the final appearance, since ultimately one can morph V3 into a 70-year-old woman or a toddler (see Dodger's Aeon kids.) Images are reviewed by a number of staff to ensure that we get a good number of opinions. In this instance, we felt that the figure appeared underage. You are of course welcome to repost this image with clothing. "NO Child has breasts like that..." I understand your viewpoint, but this is not the case. I personally was wearing a C-cup by the age of 12, and I was not overweight not particularly unusual amongst my female classmates. I hope I have helped to clarify our position on this. Of course if you still feel that your image was removed in error you are welcome to contact admin who will review this decision. Karen Poser Moderator

I know someone else who had a V3 image deleted, but that one was clothed. Yes, it was. The sides of the very full and clearly adult breasts were showing because of the top she was wearing, but it was V3, and she was clothed.

I do have to wonder when a clothed Victoria 3 (she of the Amazonian proportions) became a naked child.

bonni

Message edited on: 04/24/2005 11:21

Yeah, I have a 12 year old cousin who puts Dolly Parton to shame and has a 22" waist. In the end, you really need to respect the way these people run their sites because we live in an age in the U.S. where freedom of expression is not necessarily guaranteed. I'd rather one "maybe" image be taken down, than George Bush's goons shutting Renderosity down...

.

Although I don't believe it, if they've actually become so defensive that they're adding disclaimers to their nude fairy images (e.g. "this is not kiddie porn"), methinks they doth protest too much. They wouldn't have to bother with all that pretense if they just took them to the nude fairy site. But the attraction to post them here is very simple - the biggest site, with the largest number of people to click on nude fairy images accompanied by nudity flags and salacious thumbnails. But it's not up to the pornographer to define his work - it's up to the beholder. I don't troll the galleries looking for kiddie porn, but maybe the images in question got some complaints, in which case the admins had to act. It's a very difficult job, so let's try not to make it any more difficult for the admins.

Just to clarify.....We're not calling ANY image pornograpy. We are just trying our hardest to make sure all images in the galleries comply with the TOS. Even if an image does not comply with our TOS, that does NOT automatically quantify it as pornography.
As for the question regarding V3, if you morph any character enough, you can make it much younger looking or much older looking than it originally was. All we ask is, if it looks like it would be questionable, either add clothing to the model, or, before uploading it, feel free to IM one of us to have the team look at it before you upload it here.

Cheers,

MorriganShadow
Poser Coord.

*edited for clarity

Message edited on: 04/24/2005 12:01

Just wanted to add a point that I forgot to make earlier. The "breast size issue" - the flipside to this is that we don't automatically consider small-breasted models as looking underage - just as there are plenty of young teens with "big breasts", there are also plenty of adult women with "small breasts" (for a given value of small.) I know there were initially some concerns over Steph Petite when we first announced the new policy, so I just wanted to reiterate that.

"We are just trying our hardest to make sure all images in the galleries comply with the TOS." like the images I counted within 30 minutes, 3 days ago.. which are still there? clues : Bondage, touching, Kids and Touching. since StacyG informed us that the 7 persons running this forum spend most of their time in the galleries policing them, I must concur there is a breakdown of communication somewhere... (and no, I won't IM or anything the images I found. According to the community manager, most of the poser staff are here to check the galleries for this. far be it for me to do their work for them.)

Question for the "powers that be"... Do you guys just kill an offensive image at your whim or do you consult the artist/poster? Do you just delete it or msg poster to recommend changes and point out what's "wrong" with the image or what? Do the admins take a pro-active or draconian approach to these matters... I'm talking theory of practise and not the displayed draconian response. I'm not trying to champion this cause or stir things up but I'm curious as to what the admins are charged with doing and how it should be (and how it is) carried out. G

Khai -

If you have a problem with an image, IM one of us, and we, as a team, will look over it. We cannot read your mind, so we will not know which images you are talking about. It is possible that they were either accidentaly overlooked, or were not viewed, at that time, to be violations of the TOS. Each member of the Moderator/Coordinator teams are human and volunteers.

ghelmer -

It depends on the section of the TOS that the image is in violation. If it is a serious offense, then the image is deleted, and the member is emailed. If it is a minor offense, we ask the member to edit the image/description.

The TOS are there for you to peruse at your leisure. We do, however, ask that you read them and understand them before posting an image here. There is a link to the new Child Image Guidelines whenever anyone uploads an image. We can't make you click on it to read it. We have, however, made it easier for you to find it.

MorriganShadow
Poser Coordinator.

Message edited on: 04/24/2005 12:14

"Even if an image does not comply with our TOS, that does NOT automatically quantify it as pornography" ?? Even if an image does not comply with the no-pornography TOS it is not quantified as pornography ?? Even if you break a law, you are not a law breaker. Even if you steal, you are not a thief. Even if you lie, you are not a lier. So what you are saying is that TOS are meaningless, just words put there for people to read and be lead to believe that there are rules to follow. "To give you an idea of how we ascertain this, we go by indicators such as facial appearance, body appearance, hand/foot/head ratio to torso and overall presentation (e.g. is the figure in a playroom or wearing a school uniform or a setting which would indicate a child.)" No, No, and No. My character was (and still is in all the other art galleris out there) clearly a Fae character just standing between two mushrooms with several fireflies buzzing around her. She had faerie wings and was simply standing in a non-suductive mannor with a thoughtfull look in her fae eyes. She is of the porportions of a character at least 18 years of age or older. "I have a 12 year old cousin who puts Dolly Parton to shame..." Well that settles it then, since even a child can appear to be older then a minor then Only Old women and men with grey hair and wrinkles should from this day forth be allowed in the Renderosity gallery. For it is only the old, grey, and wrinkled that can be clearly declaired Not to be of a minor age. If she 'looks' 18 then she may be only 17 so lets ban it all! No more dwarf battles for they are of "child porportions" and no more elf characters for they 'may be minors' that just look older....

igohigh, you're definitely missing the point. I understand that you are frustrated. First of all, I will stand by my statement that stating that an image is not suitable here by Renderosity's TOS does NOT automatically make it pornography. Second, Karen was giving examples. Just because you rendered a fae character does not automatically fit her into the TOS. If you wouldn't put here up in a plain texture without clothes, don't try to insult the intelligence of everyone in the community by putting a fae texture on it and telling us that just because it's a fae, it is ok. EVERYONE has to follow the same rules. We're not stating that young models cannot be allowed in the galleries. They just have to be clothed. I understand that your image is still in galleries elsewhere. That's fine, it just isn't allowed here. MorriganShadow Poser Coordinator.

True story...My 13 year old daughter was trying on a skirt one day in a store and this man (with his 3 year old son in tow, a divorced dad) tells me how pretty my sister is. He then starts chatting me up about my pretty sister and maybe getting a date with her. You should have seen the look on his face when I told him that the young lady (B cup size, 23" waist, 5 feet 7 inches tall, women's US size 10 feet) was actually my 13 year old daughter. Yes, it is very hard to tell children from adults at time. I believe that in some instances, Rosity errs on the side of caution.

"If you wouldn't put here up in a plain texture without clothes, don't try to insult the intelligence of everyone in the community by putting a fae texture on it and telling us that just because it's a fae" Please, THAT is the most RIDICULES statement to justify banning faeries made yet! A faerie is a faerie and NOT automatically a minor as you are clearing attempting to defend! Don't YOU dare insult my intelligence!! "giving examples" - yes, and all the 'examples' given clearly declaired that I DID obay the TOS and did Not break them. My character is clearly NOT a minor.

ighohigh - Faeries are not banned here. However, if they are unclothed, and they have the appearance of being a minor, they will be removed. MorriganShadow Poser Coordinator

.

"and they have the appearance of being a minor" What you are trying to say rather is "and if they are not a minor but the moderators what to twist the facts declare that if she/he might look even younger then she/he could be a minor or perhaps and older person who just looks younger, they will be removed." Frankly, the US does have laws against that. For I am 43 years old and all too often I am mistaken for only 22 or so, just the other day an interviewer asked me how I can be presenting him with the details on my resume when I clearly "can't be over 23 or 24.." And again - looking over all the TOS, the Rendo 'Mission Statement', and the above "examples" - my image was within all guidelines....except they did not meet the approval of Rendo's over-jealous moderators with the power to pull. As to "If you wouldn't put here up in a plain texture without clothes"....Pelendora is a "plain texture", it is Not some "fae texture" with the intent of 'insulting' the intelligence of everyone in the community. But apparently some people are so narrow minded that they feel that only certain textures quantify as "fae textures"...whatever the heck that is supposed to mean..?

igohigh, I have explained our review procedure to you quite clearly - your image was reviewed by a number of staff, not one person, and we do not "twist the facts". Your image was NOT within the guidelines and therefore it was removed. I have asked that if you feel the decision was incorrect, you contact admin. That's admin@renderosity.com, or IM SndCastie or StaceyG. I am now closing this thread since I see it rapidly degenerating in tone. Thank you. Karen Poser Moderator