Quote - Hi all,

Further to suggestions, I'm happy to tell you the team have decided that we will no longer automatically issue warnings for removals but will discuss on a case by case basis depending on whether there is reasonable doubt over the model's apparent age.

I'm not exactly sure how I should read this. If there is reasonable doubht over the model's apparent age and the mods come to the conclusion that s/he is underage it will lead to removal. But will it lead to a warning?

I hope not. Because then no artist can afford to venture near the borders - without intending to cross them - severely limiting artistic expression.I can't imagine that that would be the intention of the 'rosity staff.

I'm not happy with the "all or nothing" approach. An analogy: driving 37 MPH where 35 is the speed limit will get you the same severe punishment  as driving 100 MPH while completely drunk and running over a pedestrian (on the same road).

A more gradual approach sounds fair. Doesn't have to be overcomplicated, a warning could be light or severe, just two levels. Three severe warnings and you're out, just like now, three light warnings equal one severe.

I'd suggest an expiration date too, especially on light warnings. Why should a slight slip of the tongue / keyboard / render engine / paintbrush keep on haunting you forever? Points lost on a driving license don't have eternity value either.

A review of past warnings, as MS states is possible, sounds rather useless to me. If a group of moderators came to the conclusion that a certain post was a TOS violation three years ago, it's rather unlikely that it wouldn't be a TOS violation now, after all, the rules have become stricter. So reviews based on reevaluation of the then offending posts make no sense - 99.99% of all rulings would stand. Waste of time.

And if the review would be based on the age of the warning, why should we have to request such a review? Far easier to automate it and erase all warnings older than xxx days/months/years.

Only when both severity and age of the old violation are taken into account such a review would make sense. 

Enough blabbering. Karen, could you tell me what happens if there is reasonable doubt about the apparent age and the mods come to the conclusion that the model appears too young, if just by a little? Removal, warning, or both?

MorriganShadow, those reviews of old violations you wrote about,  what is being reviewed? Severity, date of the violation, both?

Please don't respond with *if you want to know about your personal record contact an admin. *I have a pretty good idea of where my record stands.

I want clarification of Renderosity POLICY. Such a clarification would help ALL members to better understand and follow guidelines and TOS.

Quote - lawyerized wording clarifies exact positions. it is only when the opposition makes  assumptions based on these words and then finds that their assumptions are not true that they cry "deception"

which side you are on determines if you blame the assumption or the lawyerized words.

Lawyerized wording is designed to hide exact positions.

The ACLU is effectively stating that they favor the legalization of child porn.  It would be far more honest of them to simply flatly say that  -- rather than using the semantic-dodger device of saying it by not saying something else.

However, as I've mentioned previously -- some of them are honest.  I've seen them acknowledge the point.  It's required that they do so in order to be internally consistent with themselves & with their own professed positions.  Some few of them are intelligent enough to realize this......so they admit to it.  Proudly, in a few cases.

My understanding of Karen's statement is that if you place a blatant trangression of the guidelines, eg. a naked Maddie playing in a paddling pool (remember when we used to do that as children?) then the image will be removed and a warning placed on your record.  If you post a borderline image, eg. a naked Aiko that could be anywhere from 13 - 19 then the image will be removed but no official warning placed on your record.  I ould also imagine that if you repeatedly post borderline images that are deemed "in need of removal due to TOS breach" then you will receive a warning on your record.

My understanding of the reviewals system is that if you received a warning for TOS violation a couple of years ago and have continued to actively participate in the site but have no further warnings issued on your record and ask for reviewal then it is likely to be removed.

However, this post should be taken with a LARGE grain of salt because it is my opinion only and I have no bearing on the decisions made by any member of the admin team or Renderosity staff.

Pretty much got it there Val

Only one more point....

"If you post a borderline image, eg. a naked Aiko that could be anywhere from 13 - 19 then the image will be removed but no official warning placed on your record. "

You wont get a warning on your record first, you will get a reminder to send any other possible borderline images to staff for a review before posting. ;) {which actually you can do now if you are unsure}

pats self on head

I did good for once - got to stop making a habit of getting things right, its no fun..................lol

and because of this thing it takes a team to decide, you ban artists..That is ridiculous..How is an artist suppose to post any art without a team to tell him if its o.k....it just shows how there are really no guidelines but personal ones or it would be either aiko is to young or she is not?and really none of this matters as there is a rule that states"any post, image or writings can be removed at the discretion of staff if it is deemed unsuitable for this community".so that one rule overwrites them all...and once again deems us puppets..with moderators to decide our fate.You are inforcing something that just isnt clear.and thats not fair.and if the rules arent fair i dont want to play.and i am pretty sure others feel the same...but nothing will happen to change these rules till it effects the bottom line.personally i think the artists banned for this should be reinstated with an appology..but i dont think they would want to come back after this kind of unfair treatment.it is a slap in the face.

Quote - Actually Billy, I get Gabe's point so it didn't get lost in translation from Americanese to real english ;o)  Just because you pop a pair of wings and some pointy ears on a borderline image does not make it acceptable within the nudity guidelines  because it is still basically human in shape so saying "but it is not a child it is a faery" is not an acceptable get out clause.  Maybe I just got his point because I agree with him on the clothing issue and for once I got mine in first so I don;t look like a brownnoser for once ;o)

of course it doesnt. and thats part of the point of the discussion. it isn't about whether or not it a fairy but if  the fairy is truly kid like and and the way it's decided if it's kidd like or in fact if its an okay image. on one hand we have mods basically saying sorry...i found nothing wrong with the image, in fact i thought it a good image but we pulled the fucker anyway cos previously to this image some people posted really naufgty pics so we changed the rule re child nudity. again this isn't about porn or even fairies. though for some reason people seem to want to make it so....it's about whats acceptable and waht isnt. if even the mods don't know how are we supposed to. and i see there still saying we'll vet your pics if your not sure.....a rule should  be succisnt and fair enough for all to follow....like i siad its about a line. a line that was changed by the mods as though the emebership had consented to it. when in fact it looks like it was done to make their job easier. now they have coffee and decide collectively what to pul and what not to pull.

billy

Quote - > Quote - Also, in all my storybooks when I was a girl in the 70's my fairies wore nice floaty chiffon type frocks and weren't in the altogether and I've always wondered why they are depicted nude so often - is it perhaps a lack of suitable floaty and dreamy clothing?

I asked the same question about 100 posts back and I am still waiting for a legitmate response.

again ...its about how one defines where the line is re underage.it's not about fairies though they wre predominantly mentioned.  as for you story books  i bet the moms never all had 88 in breasts and 17 inch waists that walked around all day with their tits out and the gearbox dripping goo everywhere.  what is all this shit with fluffy fuckin fairies..

billy

Quote - > Quote - 3dzone - this isnt directed at you since ive never even seen your gallery or the image in question - but the monthly fairy debate has reared its head again so im going to say my bit. its been about 3 years since ive said anything on the topic.

ive never understood why the poser crop of faeries always have to be prepubescent, and either stark naked or clad in thongs or something so skimpy that it looks like something a stripper would wear.

it sure makes it easy for people to jump to the conclusion that its a form of child porn, since all you have to do is slap a pair of wings on the character and say 'its not a child, its a fairy' to get away with it. i watched a lot of tv and read a lot of books when i was growing up, and i never read about/saw any faeries wearing the average type of clothing theyre sold with in the marketplace, thats for sure. 90% of the fae that are up for sale in the rosity marketplace or elsewhere are all wearing something more at home in a porn film than a fantasy novel.

and if you need to render them naked, what keeps you from just using something like a more mature fairy for the render? im not saying make nursing-home faeries, but you could base them on an 18 year old body and be perfectly fine... as opposed to the 6 year old bodies theyre all based on.
if you insist on rendering childlike faeries then why not create some garb from either flowers/leaves or something that covers them up more than a wicked weasel swimsuit? nothing wrong with them, of course - rio has a couple - but if i saw someone order one for their 6 year old id report them to the police and childrens aid immediately as a pedophile. as would most people. would you find it acceptable if the child had long ears glued to their head and butterfly wings strapped to their back?

Good to see others are now starting to ask the same question I did. 

why didn't you post when blackhearted saw that it was mainly about borderline case re aiko and stuff. .  is this the sum of your input....why don't fairies wear fluffy costumes? now a question like why don't fairies have big tits i could understand in this predominantly nude orientated meat market

billy

Quote - > Quote - Guess your parents bought the same storybooks huh Fazzel.  It's something that has always bothered me ever since I started working with Poser a lot and became involved with "the communities", all the skimpy, revealing outfits that these mythical creatures wear and the number that mut have died from pneumonia by now is reprehensible :o)

I grew up on Disney's Tinkerbell.

Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm no prude, that link to the Wicked Weasel site gave
me some greats ideas for a swimsuit I'm working on for a Vicki character.

It just seems odd there are so many naked fairies.  Are fairies supposed to
be intelligent beings or animals?  If they are animals I guess it would make
sense for them to run around naked, but if they are human type beings it
would make more sense if they were clothed.  I don't recall seeing any
naked fairies in any of the Lord of the Ring movies, unless I ducked out
for a box of popcorn when one was on screen.

this isn't the lord of the fucking rings though it seems to be peopled by people from the twilight zone who think it is. it's basically a slut market for want of a better term....they sell nuned models and skimpy outfits. some of the models are childlike to some extent in essence and the out fits for said models are mainly exotoc or erotic that your sold to cloth them with. does that sound like a lord of the rings stage set to you.....and in they lord of the rings they were fuckin elvish ..not the singer btw lmao

billy

Quote - > Quote - and as for you xenophonze...you'll be smiling on the other side of your face with your witty ...I can assure you that the company president's job is safe....come to think of it so will i lmao. and yeah i know the members aren't shareholders but as i say if people voice a loud enough opinion.....which obviosly they don't cos i'm the only burke posting  ...then sometimes rules change.

 

hee.....hee.....hee....hee......:lol:

Seriously -- I will say this much: the idea (read: threat) of "boycotts" has been floated many times in the past -- for one person's unhappy reason or another.  It's never gone anywhere.

By and large -- and as a general rule -- boycotts don't work.  This can be exemplified by sanctions raised against one misbehaving nation or another.  The bad guys usually manage to quickly find ways around the presumptive restrictions.

About the only times that I've ever seen a truly effective boycott have always had to do with local issues -- involving small groups of people on both sides.  With larger groups involved: it's normally a well-nigh useless tactic.  But participating in a boycott -- or suggesting participating in one -- can serve to convince certain people that they are actually accomplishing something.

of course a boycott would never work here. some think this is lord of the ring land for god sake lol..it was just one of those if things we use to hammer that nail in  :)

in the main i think many don't even know whats being debated.

billy

Quote - quote
if you insist on rendering childlike faeries then why not create some garb from either flowers/leaves or something that covers them up more than a wicked weasel swimsuit

Actually this is in the new child nudity guidelines:

No use of: transparent clothes, blurring of nude areas, or the use of “blots” or “Censored” wording or props to cover areas that are otherwise not clothed...

I do believe flowers, leaves and the like are not considered clothing either as they are in essense, props

Please read the guidlines when unsure on *ANYTHING...*saves us having to ruin your day by removing your image, and the image can be easily vetted by submitting privately to an Admin or Mod for pre view if you are unsure...

in essence some clothing are props. does this mean only conforming clothing or is clothing thats a prop illegal on kids as well. if you want us to follow rules to the letter of the law make them logical and understandable.

billy

Quote - > Quote - quote

if you insist on rendering childlike faeries then why not create some garb from either flowers/leaves or something that covers them up more than a wicked weasel swimsuit

Actually this is in the new child nudity guidelines:

No use of: transparent clothes, blurring of nude areas, or the use of “blots” or “Censored” wording or props to cover areas that are otherwise not clothed...

I do believe flowers, leaves and the like are not considered clothing either as they are in essense, props

i dont think it would be a problem. i dont just mean putting one leaf over the genitals... but a skirt made out of leaves would cover just as much as a skirt made out of cotton or polyester. im sure in the end it would be a moderator decision but i seriously doubt anyone would pull it on the grounds that leaves are not an acceptable 'fabric'. theyre completely opaque.

sorry blackhearted but rules is rules...no props allowed what you infer is what i'm infering. that some cases where they take down images are farsical. now though you say........ iaccording to the mods it wou;ldnt be about acceptability it would only be about did you break the tos or not...using a prop would be and i would think it even covers clothes that are props cos there ine essence props before there clothes  lmao

billy

Quote - of course a boycott would never work here. some think this is lord of the ring land for god sake lol..it was just one of those if things we use to hammer that nail in  :)

This "land" is largely whatever YOU choose to make of it.  And for some, it IS "the Lord of the Rings Land" -- because that's their interest.

Quote - in the main i think many don't even know whats being debated.

A lot of different (and perhaps unrelated) stuff all at once, I'd say.  And some are even a lot more prolific about it than I am. :biggrin:

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2665246

We're not debating we are going round in Ever Decreasing Circles interminably.  Some with personal axes to grind, some who believe that because they are an artist they have the right to do whatever they want because it is "art".  Some that appear to have no vested interest whatsoever in this debate but just enjoy muddying the waters.  Some that just want to decry certain genres of work.  The whole kit, caboodle and seedy underbelly of poserdom is here in this very thread and I'm grubbing about in the mud along with the rest of them.

Train wrecks attract a lot of attention.

There are valid points being made here, Val.  Although I'll admit that it takes some digging to find them -- as is always the case in this sort of thread.

Quote - Please read the guidelines when unsure on ANYTHING

There's the problem. Too much is open to different interpretations and personal views.

Example: young adults. Say I make a nude image of a young adult woman. To me she appears to be about 25 years of age, simply because I made her look like someone I know who's 25, and who doesn't look extremely young for her age in my opinion. I'd post that image here, fully confident that it would be within the TOS. 25 is okay, isn't it?

The image reminds a mod of someone s/he knows aged 15. That'll bring the image in the "doubtful" category. Some discussion by the mods follows, it might get removed, it might stay.

Quote - and the image can be easily vetted by submitting prvately to an Admin or Mod for preview if you are unsure.

So I should have sent the image in question to a mod to be vetted. Why should I? I made her after the likeness of a 25 year old woman, so I was sure it's OK. Apparently it wasn't OK. What can I do?

So every artist who makes a nude MUST be unsure. Unless the figure is obviously middle-aged or older - wrinkles, beer bellies, balding, grey hair (even so, I have known a guy who had a beer belly, wrinkles, and sparse grey hair at 16!) - THE ARTIST CANNOT BE SURE. So should we send hundreds of nudes per day to the mods for approval? Rather impractical.

The idea of "walking free at the first offense (if not too blatant)" would work if the lines were clear. A newbie at this site could have forgotten where to find the TOS, someone who's been absent for a long time might not be aware of the latest updates. Then the "educational" aspect would be fine.

As far as I can determine, the current rules are:

• 3 violations and you're out.
• First violation doesn't count if it is not severe.
• Violations are kept on record indefinitely.

Unfortunately, there are no sharp lines. The lines are several miles wide, and frankly, I wouldn't know how to make them sharper and clearer, especially when it comes to apparent age.
Where do these large grey areas leave the artists and the mods?

Artists can:

• severely limit themselves in their ideas and expressions,
• swamp the mods with images to be vetted, or
• run the risk of getting banned.

None of these possibilities are desirable, I'd say.

Mods can:

• apply the rules as they stand, which could lead to bans that are undeserved in their own opinions, or
• skirt the rules using their best judgement, which could lead to accusations of foul play and favoritism that are tough to refute.

Not desirable either.

NOTE: I am NOT accusing the mods of any wrongdoing. In my experience all mods do their best to be fair and evenhanded, with remarkable success.I am merely trying to help establish better and clearer guidelines for mods and artists both.

Then what? Changes to the TOS that will make them absolutely unambiguous, completely "black and white"? I don't think that's possible or desirable. There are no absolutes, especially not when it comes to art.

Refinement of the violation handling system seems to be the best option. The first steps have been made - good job, Karen, MS. Severity levels and expiration dates, supported by a database back end, could be a next step in establishing an easier to maintain, fairer and more transparent system.

But the artists have to know how it works. Whatever adjustments the mods/coords/admins make to improve the system, please let us know. I'd say the TOS page would be a good place to publish the info.

Quote - Yup, definitely not kid friendly wear although you can get similair items in our hig street stores that cater predominantly to a 13 - 18 age range and it does make me start ranting in the middle of the street when you see it. 

I can't imagine you living where I do then.  It's 100% legal for women to go  topless, even in the heart of our downtown if they want to.  It's been this way for several years already... mid 90's I think it was made legal.

Quote - > Quote - Yup, definitely not kid friendly wear although you can get similair items in our hig street stores that cater predominantly to a 13 - 18 age range and it does make me start ranting in the middle of the street when you see it. 

I can't imagine you living where I do then.  It's 100% legal for women to go  topless, even in the heart of our downtown if they want to.  It's been this way for several years already... mid 90's I think it was made legal.

There's a huge difference between female nudity and females dressed like...well, whores. 

maybe but to dress like a whore isn't illegal is it and i'm pretty sure (no offense intended at all to any woman) that most women have at one time or another have  purposefully or inadvertantly dressed like one. ...and not just in the bedroom. i know for a fact i've had slanging matches with my daughters over doing it.

billy

not saying it is.  I'm just responding that I wouldn't want my kid around a woman dressed in clothes like that, either.  I"m fully ok with him seeing female nudity, so long as it's actual nudity and not whore clothes ;)

Quote - The whole kit, caboodle and seedy underbelly of poserdom is here in this very thread and I'm grubbing about in the mud along with the rest of them.

Not everyone's underbelly has been here. I'm keeping my evil opinions to myself thank you very much!

fair comment

though it was the reverse for me having just girls. i didn't want em dressing like whores......to them it was being trendy to me it was way ott lol.

billy

Quote - [ is this the sum of your input....why don't fairies wear fluffy costumes?

That about sums it up.  Is there a point to them being nude?
Or are people just too fucking lazy to figure out how the
cloth room works.

Quote - now a question like why don't fairies have big tits i could understand in this predominantly nude orientated meat market

billy

 

Most fairies I ever seen in classic literature didn't have tits the size of Baltimore.
Franky with DDDD size tits they  really don't look like  fairies to me.
Your milage may vary.

I could also bitch about the wings, or what passes for wings, that get
grafted onto some of them that wouldn't even get a helium balloon off
the ground, but that's another subject.

Baltimore's tits really aren't that big.

I used to live there.

Now if were talking Asses....well...yeah...Baltimore has a big ass.

It's smaller now that I've moved though.

8 )~

Tom

is there a point to any artwork being nude....why the fuck cant fairies be nude its about age not genre for gods sake. if people wanna do fairies with big tits why stop em...cos you read somewhere that fairies don't have big tits.

is there any fucking point to dressing them up as fucking wonder woman do you reall think those arm bands deflect bullets. it's called personal preference or artistic license...not that all of them are artistic by any stretch of the imagination. its a dipiction of the human form...is that so fucking bad for gods sake. does it really hurt anyone if someone puts wings on a nude and calls it a fairy. does it have any relevance to how you feel.....yes you could bitch aboput wings and anything else you care to bitch about thing is all you'd be doing is fuckin bitchin. if you don't like naked fairies don't look at them they should have a nudity advisory...use the fucker who the fuck are you to tell another artist they too fuckin lazy to put clothes on. and this is in no way a personal attack. just thoughts in general about people who say what is and isnt acceptable whether its inside the tos or not....how can you even begin to compare some of the shite thats in the galleries including your own two menanderins into the artworld with classic art.....if you wanna discuss the classic then i'll be happy to oblige. specially about all those naked kids that are rampant in it along with every other kind of nude including fantasy creatures.

billy

yes it's me i'm back again....

i just wondered if anyone actually knows anything about faeries..what people now call fairies..

do you think the fairy originated in some silly book. greek history was full of them nymphs and other assorted creatures are part of the realm of faeries. mostly they were all depicted naked...do you think the greeks were too fucking lazy to clothe them. mermaid were originaly sea sprites or another form of faerie. most have a tie to natire or part of it. mermaids were and still are classed as sea faeries. how many mermaids do you see wearing a wooly fucking jumper. elves and even gnomes are assosiated with faires as are pixies and goblins. wood sprites or tree sprites were often depicted naked. they are fucking supposed to be dressed as a human in a frilly fucking tutu. that came about so as not to offend the little boys girls who read about them. the stories that were often cruel and horrendous were toned down so little boys and girls didn't wet their beds at night. faires in the classics. look at bottecelli and raphael. look at every naked fucking angel from which many fairy stories originate...oh mu look they have wings they must be fairies. well some of them were called fairies cos religion and angles were a killing offence. look at all the pre raphaelite images that have naked angels. angels fucking animals while naked cherubs...small fairies look on with a fucking bow and arrow. many fairies were also depicted as gods or goddesses.  but know you know what a fairy is apparently it's a 9 yr old kid in a fucking green suite woven from caterpiller shit and covered in gossemer...(spiders web). the wings of fairies could never lift them off the ground you say...the wings are a fucking metophor they're supposed to fire the imagination to sing to the fucking soul. they were never designed but the engineers of the jumbo fucking jet. do you really think angels have feathery wings that would have trouble lifting their arms let alone their bodies. i presume so cos classical art is strewn with feathers on the backs of nubile boys, girls men and womem...they're a fucking metophorical image. they a representation of what man aspires an angels wings to fucking look like. they aren't batman personified their imaginings of mans souls and aspirations. their beauty in paint. they are the most wonderful minds that ever existed laid dow in brush strokes of love....they are not schoolboy fantasies that you read in a 2 shilling book from w. h. fucking smith. those were the bastardisation of faeries were meant to be. those were fucking comic books of stolen ideas imagination. why do people have to make everything sound so fucking dirty.  why can't people live and let live. god forbid some of you were around during the time of the inquisition. if you were the death toll would have quadrupled.

billy

Quote - is there a point to any artwork being nude....why the fuck cant fairies be nude its about age not genre for gods sake. if people wanna do fairies with big tits why stop em...cos you read somewhere that fairies don't have big tits.

They can be nude if you want them to be nude. Make all the nude fairies you want.
Make their tits so big they need a wheelbarrow to haul them around in.
Just don't post the ones that look like 5 year olds here.

As for my part I am interested in neither.

i see what you mean...i know a lot of five yr old fairies that haul their jugs round in wheelbarrows. as much as i hate breaking the news to you ..you're not a mod. don't even think of telling me what to post.  not that i have posted any images here.  what is it with you and 5yr olds. who has actually seen one in a gallery here. who has actually asked if they could who wants to....and who gives a flying fuck if  your intersted in them or not god fazzel has spoken he is not interested in 5 yr old fairies. all hail fazzel. get a grip on reality man and leave your filth at home.  the way you talk about children as though its a common practice to plaster the galleries with their imagery or the assertion that some members want to.  for all your rhetoric you have a dirty mind.

billy

Just what the fuck is your problem?  Are you not capable of carrying on a rational conversation
without insulting people?  I'm done talking to you.

Well, I can see this is nose-diving rapidly. Locking now before the smoke turns into flame...