they just took down like 3 of my pictures, and none of them contaned nudity one bit. They are really the worst gallery i have ever posted on.

ill never post on there again

You should find out why, don't you think? I'd be interested in hearing about that.

How should i find out why, you would figure they would send me a darn e mail stating why they took down my work for nothing. Im so Ped off right now its crazy

Check your site mail, you'll find there their letter of explanation.
DPH

STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

nope no mail as of yet. there the worst

AFAIK they allow nudie pix in their gallery. but if there is any hint of nips or crotch detail in the thumbnail, they may not allow it.

Please check your site and Email.

sgtprotex1@netscape.net

University of Pheonix Alumni 2008
AA Criminal Justice Degree
BA Criminal Justice Degree

Currently study in Parapsychology

What ever, its a bad polacy, if a person has the nudity filter off then i see no reason i should have to make my own thumbpic. i barely have enough time to work with poser, never mind making some little extra pic for the gallery.

its cool im done with the gallery here, ill find a new one

OK

I think they would let you @#$!! the gallery actually, but there's an extra fee for that somewhere I'm sure. :tt2:

My Freebies

pjz99 it costs 19.95 plus tax, payable with a money order or visa. All payments should be made out too darth_poserus.LOL Naw seriously, Meltz does make a valid point though, wich as of yet, has been absolutely ignored by the ptb here, in my own opinion. That point being, that it is not the fault of the artist who places an image in their gallery, if someone refuses to use a nudity filter and sees some t and a. Surely meltz and myself are not the only members who have a problem with being told that we are to be responsible for the action/choice of another member who chose not to use their nudity filters. Wich is what this policy does. It tells us all that its our fault when someone who has made the choice not to use their nudity filters, and who doesn't want to see some t and a, goes into our gallery and sees it.

"I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge." Albert Einstein

Free the freebies!

Guess you'll have to stick to half naked Vickie's in temples. Wait, or is that against the TOS too? :)

Makes me glad I don't do art galleries.

Why not have the nudity filter on by default? That way the people who need protecting from a few naked 3d pixels can have that without having to disturb the rest of us who are actually mature enough to be able to cope with seeing them.

Windows 7 64Bit
Poser Pro 2010 SR1

Why not have the nudity filter on by default?
It is.

The reasons for the new policy adoption were many. Not a question of "oh my god I saw a nipple and now I'm scarred for life."

Consistency across the site
Ability to feature images in the newsletter
Not such an "in your face" shock on opening the gallery

"you are terrifying
and strange and beautiful
something not everyone knows how to love." - Warsan Shire

the funny thing is my pics dont even have nudity. just a few thong shots. I see worse on MTV !!

If only you were the judge of that, I think many of us would be ever so much happier! Alas. :(

Personally I think the thumbnail rule is dumb as rocks, but it's in place and they're not going to change it. Good luck with that windmill.

My Freebies

I was never shocked if I opened a page and the first thing I saw was a nipple... Not even if close to my face. :p

Anyways, this policy thing needs some review.
In another 5 years there will be only architectural pictures allowed or what?
Or should this site end as an huge advertising platform for certain 2D/3D software?

Right now one could not even post pictures that document war crimes just because they are way to violent, disgusting, whatever and they depict people that maybe are naked and/or were or will be harmed, killed, ... Basically they often contain exactly the things that are not allowed to show.

I don't talk about the thumbnails, but the picture itself that must not contain this and that and whatever else and blabla. Basically an empty black picture is allowed.
Or one that depicts a small cat... But only if it's not aroused of course.
Shouldn't a bee sitting on a flower to collet pollen be forbidden as well? It's sexual action so to say...

Less offensive said: To separate all the pure sexual action oriented pictures from the more moderate ones was maybe a good step, but to comply with everyone who complains about that nature is as nature is, now that is simply not good.

What other reason than commerce is there to follow those complaints? I terribly fail to see it.
A professional art website should depict any art because philosophy and logic demands it.
Art is art, not because everything is perfect (than there would be not a single picture) nor because the artist is of great renown but because the art is an expression of somebody.
If it's an site dedicated to the art of ... Tizian, then there would be pictures done by Tizian.
If it's an site about art done with whatever then there would be art done with whatever and by whoever.

And nothing else.

The way things are going in 5 yrs all art will be banned & anyone caught looking at it will be branded a pervert, as it is right now anyone who uses Poser is a pervert, or so the saying goes.

Anyway the gallery is not about art & hasn't been for a long time, it's partly about selling the content in the store & partly about stroking the ego's of a select few "artists", another thing that's forgotten in the rush to political morality correctness is that pictures with naked pixels in the thumb get more views than anything else, SEX sells. On the rare occasions I go into the galleries if the thumb isn't interesting then I won't bother with the picture & I'm more inclined to click on something that has a naked nipple in the thumb than not. But hey I'm a pervert aren't I?

Windows 7 64Bit
Poser Pro 2010 SR1

Quote - the funny thing is my pics dont even have nudity. just a few thong shots. I see worse on MTV !!

MTV? Thats one of those channels like Cinemax (aka Sin-a-max or Skin-a-max) or the playboy channel, that you have to pay a monthly fee for. thus not subject to the same rules as broadcast tv.

Maybe there are "thong shots" on broadcast tv. if so i'm not watching the right programs to see them. I definatly don't see them in the advertisements for shows.

Personlly i'm rather indiffrent about this particular rule. I have no problem with nudity, so i leave the gallery unfiltered. At one time I liked to scan the galleries in my downtime at work but with the thumbnails showing everything i had to be careful who was around. I didn't complain about it, i just chose not to view the galleries at work anymore.

My Homepage - Free stuff and Galleries

MTV a porn channel? since when? are you sure you're talking about the same channel?

Windows 7 64Bit
Poser Pro 2010 SR1

are we beating this old dead horse again? LOL. I thought we broke the stick already and moved on?

I have to ask a question and this is not mean spirited, seriously it isnt, i'm really very curious. I've seen this before, and it just amazes me, and leaves me somewhat stupified.

I have a severe problem understanding that some can visually create things and manipulate 3-d space, yet do not have the pride in the work involved to spend 30 seconds making an appropriate thumbnail for a public gallery? I know people don't like the policy, and I'm definately not getting into that can of worms, but if you can spend that much time creating an image of merritt, I think its worth the respect to the creation to make it compliant to view.

your right it does only take 30 seconds to make a thumbpic, its just the point that NONE of my pictures contain nudity at ALL. yet they were still takin down because some chump that has a million hours on his hands decides my pics are nudity blah blah blah..

If they did contain nipples and that sort then i would have made the dumb thumbnails. But its really not worth speaking about it anymore, im tired of wasting my time with this subject!!!

Quote - MTV a porn channel? since when? are you sure you're talking about the same channel?

I was refering to the fact that you have to pay for access like those other channels.

I was implying that one should not compare the content of a free website with the content of a TV station that you must pay for access.

My Homepage - Free stuff and Galleries

Quote - > Quote - MTV a porn channel? since when? are you sure you're talking about the same channel?

I was refering to the fact that you have to pay for access like those other channels.

I was implying that one should not compare the content of a free website with the content of a TV station that you must pay for access.

MTv is on basic cable. True, this does mean that you have to pay for it as part of your cable package, and not everyone has cable, but it really doesn't show anything in terms of nudity which isn't shown on broadcast TV.

My biggest quip - not that it affects me whatsoever - is that Renderosity made its name, brings home the bread and butter, and is the largest site all with respect to Poser. Should be simple to see where I'm a goin' huh?

Let's talk to each other like we're five year olds.

What is Poser for? Hmmm. Working with 3d figures, most of which represent human beings so that they can be "Posed" and eventually rendered.
How would that affect renders (and galleries)? Since most users here use Poser and most of Poser involves working with 3d representations of human beings, one must suspect that most of the gallery would be renders of 3D human beings from Poser (or related).
Art - well, art doesn't have to involve human beings and some of it doesn't - but surprisingly, human beings seem to find artwork involving other human beings to be compelling and interesting (probably something to do with empathy, aesthetics, and some other internal brain wiring). If this weren't the case, art from cavemen to now wouldn't be so rife with humans in one form or another.

This all begs the question - what's the use of a website that depends on Poser that has a gallery where you can't show renders of human beings unless they are wearing non-descript boxes, large coats, or non-form fitting armor plating?

My advice: stop complaining and move your galleries to other sites that aren't towing a commerical business line and are instead geared towards actual art.

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

-- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone

now what would be the point of that? we'ed have nothin to bitch and complain about!

A public service announcement: If you do @#$!! the Renderosity Gallery, be smart. Do it safely. Always use virus protection.

My Freebies

Oh, Intercourse the Penguin! - Monty Python...;)

I wish I'd said that.. The Staircase Wit

anahl nathrak uth vas betude doth yel dyenvey..;)

Having second thoughts about posting my latest :cough: masterpiece here after reading this. Seriously. It has a Sith lord playing with his lightsaber and there's a nekkid R2D2. Now that's gotta be perverted. ;-)

I agree in general, but daz takes in more money AFAIK. that would qualify it as the biggest poser site. jeez, I'm tempted to post a nudie pic, just to see what happens, y'all :lol:

Miss Nancy, do you have a gallery somewhere? I would love to see it.

I posted some porno toons and animations someplace, but they're several years outta date. they don't compare with the new stuff available here and elsewhere. they're doing some good stuff nowadays, when they mind their ps 'n qs. all it takes is reading the manual, photoshop actions, and all that.

Meltz - there's another render site that may be more suited to your needs- Renderotica ! I understand your concerns however this is not your site so you are obliged to follow the rules - if you dont like them - leave -or try to have a discussion with the moderators - griping to the general membership is hardly appropriate!

"griping to the general membership is hardly appropriate!"

Its called freedom of speach pal.

Renderotica is bacily a porn site, i do not do porno. My pictures were not even of a nude woman, they all have cloths on, but still they were takin down for i guess showing some skin off in them.

All im saying is im done with this gallery here on renderosity. Other then that i love renderosity, best place to shop for my poser stuff.

All i am saying is that there is a Gallery Filter button for member for a reason. So why not let them decide to filter there images or not.

It is even getting stranger in the store. Though right now they are allowed/forced to tell you there are nude depictions of body textures in additional pics accompanying the products, there is rapidly coming a time when these pics showing how you are spending your hard earned chump change on body textures will also be censored and the merchants will have to use censor buttons or bikinis on their renders like DAZ. What is the darn point of that? If I am going to buy a texture I want to see the texture detail not try to figure out what it will look like under the bikini or censor buttons. If I am going to buy a figure with altered or heavily morphed body parts I want to see those body parts and that includes both free and store character morphs! That is one of the reasons I stopped buying textures at DAZ. The problem is really those folks who prefer web browsing at work. If they would just concentrate on doing their work and not going on line there would be no concern as to what might pop onto their screen...right!? Uhhh...am I in trouble for suggesting that! Ok...ok...I am leaving! LOLOL

Well those people who spent their working time with visiting any non work related web sites should be sued and fired at once. What they look at doesn't matter in this case.

If a product is about hair colors or exterior settings there is no need to show anything that some screwed mind could think of as offensive but with body textures and many other stuff it makes no sense if one can only see a bit here and a bit there.
When using nude figures in the final pictures, I want to know what they will look like before buying them. It's often a game of luck as it is now because the preview pics are not always of sufficient size or quality.
Even if there's an option of refund or whatever it's way to long-winded to get rid of this particular product and my money back. Further the money can not work for me for the time I don't have it.
The latter maybe appears as an insignificant problem, but it becomes much more important if there are many transactions and much money involved. Additionally to the missed interest the transactions and working time will cost quite a bit.

The whole concept that they'd came up with here is... LOL.
There is no sense and nothing good. Actually I don't even know who should profit from it in the end.
Would be better to split the site into an area for art containing nudity (but not pornography) and one for art without. The same with the marketplace.
At least this would make a little sense then. But only a very little.

There's something about this place that reminds me strong of religious fanatics because these folks tend to make rules without any sense and without any logical consistence out of something that had some sense and logic consistence once.

Whatever. Pictures are the root of all evil and boobs are the evil itself...
Bloody beaten chicks that show their boobs while will give rise to the end of mankind and will provoke the wrath of whatever god (or at least some terrorist who want's to play god).
Let's make an art related website without art and no one could complain.

... @#$!!

-Whateverer

THe problem is commerce. For the sake of keeping every customer in the base files they try to placate them all. If someone even so much as sneezes offense at something they take that as something offensive to the majority or of "potential" offensiveness to the majority and dutifully censor the problem. I had a pic up at DAZ. They all loved it. They voted unanimously to put it in the gallery which I found quite flattering 'cause DAZ was a hard nut to crack for that years ago. It was up a few days and I get a letter from management telling me one person was offended and if I wanted them to keep it up I would have to censor the offending bits. It was a bit of the nipple of the preteen that you would have had to look for with a magnigying glass to really notice. Apparently someone was looking for it or had nothing better to look for because that little "bit" got their butt warmers up in a tight little bundle and they felt "obliged" to complain. I refused to fix it. it got pulled with profuse apologies from management. I never submitted work there again...just for the principal. The same thing is going on right now with all the anti-religion fanatics and pseudo-kiddie porn flag wavers and anti smoking lobbies and anti gun mommies......you get the picture. For the silly misguided agendas of the minority the majority suffer. Since this site belongs to someone else we either suck up and conform to their ever increasing pathetic rules or move on. I haven't posted here in a long time. If they want to delete my stuff they can. I have gotten past all of this. Though I would still like to see the products I am buying...I have spent just as little money here as well.

Well, the only thing that keeps me here is the marketplace and that it is here at ReRo not as childish as at DA with all it's emoticons and the kiddies running around there.
When thinking about doing a pic it's almost like "umm, got an nice idea... remove this for the TOS, remove that for the TOS... remove some more stuff for the TOS... Have a V3/V4/Jessi/Whatever with or without environment left."
Even during medieval age the catholic church was more open minded than those ReRo responsibles today. Any old cathedral is a true pornshow compared to what is allowed here.

The most creative one can come up with is to redo some scene already done a thousand times by everybody just with different light settings and the latest clothes/hair.
Just like all these valentine, x-mas, birthday, blablabla "cards".
Actually these should be subject to TOS as they are in the most cases less art than a pair of boobs.

Or you start to model your own stuff for weeks or months and have some more architectural pic that noone ever cares about. And I'm not that fascinated by model some stuff for the sake of modeling some stuff anyways...
The same it's with elaborated shader trees consisting of 100+ nodes. For what?
To have 1 more V3/V4 or some material that looks slightly different or totally weird and where the changes due to the funny 500-something kB filesize limit barely can be seen.

Whatever, things won't change, lol... Not here and not at DA.
The conclusion of all this is that I go sleep now and later this day I try again to be creative without violating the TOS. :p

Zarat and Shante, I'd be very interested to know what types of images you're wanting to post here but feel would violate the TOS.

As neither of you have ever had an image removed, I am concerned that you're misinterpreting the TOS. Unless your tastes run to very violent and/or sexual imagery? (Nothing wrong with that - this just isn't the place for it.)

"you are terrifying
and strange and beautiful
something not everyone knows how to love." - Warsan Shire

Well...

I don't look at the gallery often.
If there is a good artist that I trip over, then usually I hope they have their own site which I can visit and check out - and bookmark.
There is so much crap being posted in the galleries that I very rarely go and check it out. Anything with baloon tits can go to hell. (You know the ones I mean. watermelons instead of apples.)
Of course, with the current thumbnails I can't tell it's a ballontit image before I click on it, so these days I don't bother looking at the gallery at all.
Sometimes I wish there were MINUS ratings. (now that would be an idea...)

Silke

Nevertheless, this is a wonderful, unique Gallery. With fairies-like figures with wings, sit on a green meadow with flowers. A background like in a magic realm - and everything without nipples.

Hi Karen To make sure I don't get attacked here I must start with this: I have been involved in the viewing and creation of erotica since I was in fourth grade and I am pretty long in the tooth so that is quite a long time. I don't like child abuse or pornogoraphy depicting children nor do I condone the prolific slave trade of women and children in Asia and Africa and Eastern Europe. I think however that I seem to be able to discern between Erotic Art and ignorant and blatent senseless Porno. I love women and I love children and just can't see harming them in any way. But I have always been in awe of the look and feel of human flesh in all its fantasitc gentle permutations. It is this the reason I have always pursued the human figure in my work and almost exclusively NUDE. I know nothing has been removed from my gallery yet. That wasn't my point. What I was refering to was the "walking on egg shells" "political Correectness to Suffocation" philosophy adopted by management especially visible in the marketplace and from all I have heard from even well known and reputable members of the "art" and merchent community. This a philosophy by the way seems to prevail in our government as well as industry. For example (and I site it here merely to make my case and not because I encourage it or discourage it one way or another), the nudity of children or anything referencing that, even if tastefully done or depicted as Fae Folk, has become anathema here and elsewhere and leads to creative and social suicide stigmatizing the artist and the facility the work is shown on. You can review many, many cases of such persecution and ruining of many creative lives and names in this offensive moralistic witch hunt only (in many cases) to have it all reversed in the high courts. Another example (and one I am constantly pissing about of late as mentioned in a previous note here) is merchants who can't show details of textures especially, again, in reference to textures of children are made to disguise their product in an obtuse manner and thusly affecting their revenue potential. You could argue that if you can't show children nude then why bother creating to sell such textures. Said textures, plentiful several years ago, are fewer and farhter between. So I guess if I am to render children in my renders I will have to texture them as wood grain from the neck down!? I did mention DAZ in my post who seem to have taken this philosophy to the maximum level. In discussing the issue with many in the management areas of some of these sites (DAZ for instance) it is made quickly apparent that what I stated: for the retentive purtported indignation of the very few the rest have to pay the censorship price and in some cases even management, though in agreement with our sentiments and concerns of said censorship, are placed in the very difficult position of deciding who will be alienated: the few with retentive undies or the many who just don't care. But in a society governed by the power of commerce : Money Talks And BullShit walks. That becomes the catch all here and that is what pisses many of "the rest of us" off. But I fear that Renderosity as well as other sites are following suit despite many of the court dictums that it is not necessary to do so. A 3d character depicted in most tasteful manners is not a human (child or adult) and therefore no injury can be purported for instance so why the big hubub? If the viewers don't like seeing this type of depiction it is their responsibility to filter their browsers (which is no different to placing the responsibility on parents to control their childrens' online forrays) and it is managements responsibility to make that clear when we all register for access to any site dutifully releasing the site admin and contributing memebers unconcerned with said depictions, of an recriminations. This would empower admin to say to the few offended: This is our site it is our decison and if you don't like it simply unsubscribe and go elsewhere. In doing so they protect the creative flow of artistic input, merchant contribution and revenue and more intelligently manage the rights of those who both have no desire to see it as well as the others who do. Seems site administrators don't want to be bothered prefering the "HEAVY ARMOR" approach: Blanket Censorship. What is funny is that this seems to be extremely endemic in the States proving that even in our supposed modern open society we are in fact not as modern and not as open. It is made clearer still that in fact, we are still tightly governed by the few empowered by a self righteous pseudo-Puritan ethic. I know there are limits to what can be shown at any site and I am quite familiar with the limits made here (as elsewhere) and I have tried to strictly honor them as I am sure have many others if for no other reason other than the fact I am a guest here and am therefore governed by the "House Rules". Love it or Leave it prevails here and elsewhere. But apparently some folks don't think the same or are not getting their work as open-mindedly and even handedly reviewed (or maybe are in fact breaking some of these rules). Whatever the case many have complained many merchants have left or are offering fewer product options here because of this in whole or in part. The concern is that all this censorship will get worse and it seems that it is...everywhere...even at sites like Renderotica who offer the obvious venue for said type imagery.

As an American concerned with upholding the attitudes and values of my fellow citizens, I have decided to be deeply offended by everything done by anyone, anywhere. In that spirit, I insist that all posts made in this site's galleries be pictures of models rendered without lights against a black background. Failure to adopt this policy will only prove your insensitvity to my sensitivity.....uh.... and....other.....important...sensitive issues, such as overpopulation. Just look at all these posts made by different persons. It's anarchy, I tell you. There's just way too much of you and not nearly enough of me to make it a decent world to live in.

I see that Shante has hidden ambitions to become the new ReRo site Admin. :p

I don't care being attacked or not nor do I agree with some parts of what Shante wrote in the first paragraph, but basically he said it all and there is not much I have to add right now.
I'll try to keep it non-offensive for I'm more concerned about the sites general state than about my understanding of judicature and the currently three or four TOS versions.
And well, the moderators are not really the one's who messed things up, so...

The photographs I mentioned in this thread in a note a few days ago and which I wanted to add are not relevant anymore as I didn't got the permission to do so. Politics...
Currently spending time with 3D and material settings only... [Beside some flaming on the ReRo forums :p]

But even if I only view pictures and leave some occasional comment it's a pain to navigate through all this content that I don't want to view. Not because I'm offended, but because the day only has 24h and they are gone fast with sleeping, working, social contacts.
It's a big mess.

There was this idea of some ReRo folks to make the site more professional.
Professional art is hard to find here because of the huge number of members.

With professional I don't mean that the artist has done a few comission works or makes his living with art. "Professional" is for example based on knowledge about academic painting, art history, graphic and design and the 3D/CG equivalents. The same goes for writing and the knowledge about how to do it right. It's not done with making a picture look nice.
(Just to make it clear: Nothing wrong with pictures made for fun; it's a different, usually less conscious, process of creating.)
So there are maybe 50000 contributors and 5 of them are professionals. This makes it hard to find a certain picture about topic X done via style Y if there's no separating of people by their level of professionality.

Actually the lack of classification by skill is is a very good aspect of ReRo and should be kept as it is. Just the ability to search for specific artwork is horrible and needs improvement.

Creativity...
Ratings for art are somewhat strange. Sure it's nice for the artist to see he got many good ratings. But if one does some mediocre pic and gets many good ratings the whole idea behind rating becomes a big joke.
Yeah, the critique article and all around this topic that came up lately are good and long overdone, - and soon will be forgotten again.
Study of art history, design and all the long years to train the eye were not thought of as a way to kill time for those who have to much...

TOS and creativity should work together. They do not.
As Shante already wrote, the TOS serves only a few people. For sure it does not serve to the functionality of this whole site, MP included.
If one want to study academic painting, there's some point where he's expected to draw and paint human bodies. Naked bodies of adults, teens and childs. While learning about art history this person would face many nude toddlers and childs and old man/woman and all in between whereas nothing of this can be considered porn. It was done, now it's there and it's a part of what is called art.
There are also more or less violent scenes from past centuries artworks.
Should art give the impression of an "perfect world" or should it be possible and wanted to depict reality?
So many things are going on which most simply can't think of and it's not allowed to depict them or write about them in detail because it won't be an appetizer or could cause some nightmares at worst.

What is missing here is some guideline and goal.
Should this be a site about greeting cards or a site about fairies or a site about NVIATWAS?
Or should it be a site about art in general and for everybody?

From past years I got the impression that it's a site for everybody and any kind of art.
Logical conclusion is that there would be something artistic about every thinkable topic.

For MP that would be great because it allows a wider spectrum of products.
Now one has to search in like 10 stores to find the stuff he wants. Some of these stores consist only of maybe 20 products and it's no fun to get all the stuff again in case of data loss. It's already no fun to spend a few days searching all the stores on many sites.

If ReRo would think and act more Daewoo-like it would be a good experience for the consumer and the creators of new stuff. Daewoo-like means one can get everything of one source. From electronic components over ships, aircraft, all kind of mechanical parts to weaponry. Raytheon is a similar western example.
That wont work if there's someone who says "you can sell A, but not B and you may do ads for A and not B".
If there are pictures of customers that show the MP products in use, it's good.
If there are 1000 similar pics of some product one easily get the impression that this product is somewhat useless for anything else than these pictures.

Take Aiko and the fairy pics. Somebody new to Poser and art might think that Aiko was developed to make fairy pics and nothing else.
And V3/V4 and addon products are only good if bought with a temple prop.

Having a look at Asian art sites gives a totally different impression of the matter.
There are quite some beautiful works and often much more diversity.
While the rules or TOS of many Asian sites are less restrictive you will find porn mainly on true porn sites.
What's the problem with establishing this for an US-site?
With a growing number of users, all that is needed is a good search functionality and an easy to navigate layout. Not a more restrictive TOS.
It's really as Shante said:
"If the viewers don't like seeing this type of depiction it is their responsibility to filter their browsers (which is no different to placing the responsibility on parents to control their childrens' online forrays) and it is managements responsibility to make that clear when we all register for access to any site dutifully releasing the site admin and contributing memebers unconcerned with said depictions, of an recriminations. This would empower admin to say to the few offended: This is our site it is our decison and if you don't like it simply unsubscribe and go elsewhere. In doing so they protect the creative flow of artistic input, merchant contribution and revenue and more intelligently manage the rights of those who both have no desire to see it as well as the others who do."

Those who interact with this site should be the ones who make any possible rules; - by telling what they want to see and what not. There are possibilities to vote about art and styles just like there possibilities to vote online for a government or it's plans.
Prolly there's no need then to mention these things explicitly in TOS.

And I don't think that the majority is happy with current the state. Maybe the majority of the viewers doesn't care much about the TOS but the majority of the contributers (art or products) can not profit of it.
It's with art just like with scientific basic research. You have commercial and basic research and where do most of the really breakthroughs and theories come from? Basic research.

That's because one can look what's done already and what he's is interested in. If he got a reasonable idea he will get the money to do his research. In European Union often one don't even need a reasonable idea, but that's a different topic...
There are some basic rules like no money for research on WMD and the like, but all in all it's pretty open minded and there's almost always a way to get the money.

Similar the rules should be here to allow creativity. No Porn, paedophilia and so on, and anything else is treated like what it is. Art.
More strictly seen anything that someone expresses is art to some degree.
There may be many interested in NVIATWAS and fairies and pictures of their cats, dogs, whatever, but some are simply totally weird and want to express their weirdness.
With current rules it's only possible to do it in an very abstract manner or more clearly but then only to some degree. Really difficult it's with weird sexual themes.
Should there be many highly specialized ReRo derivates where all the people doing a specific kind of art are among their like? Or should there be few ReRo's covering a wide spectrum of expressions? More social is the latter.
I remember the days when doing CAD and browsing CAD forums and galleries.
500 different kinds of screws, ball-bearings, shafts. Boring. Yes, actually it was even worse then 500 different fairy pics...

If someone wants to write a story and can not use various words because they are not approved, then after some time all stories would look very similar.

With X³ you can express many things, with 5³ you are reduced to what 5³ contains and with 125 you can express even less. The TOS are like 5³ now and it looks like they will be 125 soon.
And if one finds himself at 124 or 126 he will prolly look for a different place to share his art.
That's what it's all about.

since this is coming up again, and Tyger_purr is bring up the whole notion of what is in normal society and what is not...

i once again ask for clarification on these magazine covers once seen in your average supermarket:

Quote -
do these pictures seen on quite popular magazines distributed practically everywhere fit the new thumbnail policy?
vanity fair - kate moss
bazaar - britney spears
vanity fair - scarlett johanson & kiera knightley
vanity fair - demi moore pregnant
vanity fair - demi moore painted
vogue - jennifer aniston
time - howard schatz cover
time - howard schatz cover 2

and just to say, i didn't look up "nude," "breast," or anything like that. some i came across quite accidentally just looking for magazine covers. and that doesn't even get into the perfume ads.

i've asked this multiple times in multiple threads. and if the answer isn't uniform, please provide a cover by cover yes and no. because the rules are not clear, which is why this keeps coming up.

Tiari - i took days making thumbnails for each of my images, and more time just to make them work here. i have about 4 or 5 of what i consider my best work that i cannot post here without including a thumbnail i consider excreable, so they simply aren't here. i have some thumbnails i think are very weak because i had to crop them not for best composition, but to comply with censorship. if you depict a nude woman, the point isn't sex, and your camera angle and pose don't allow you to separate her head from her chest easily, then you're pretty much done. because most of the time, unless you've really deliberately planned it, a picture of a stomach or feet isn't able to convey anything other than "sexy."

So for both of you, you have not told me what type of images you feel you are prevented from displaying here...

Shante, you have mentioned child nudity but said that it's "just an example". You also stated " So I guess if I am to render children in my renders I will have to texture them as wood grain from the neck down!?" - I am sure you are being facetious, but just in case, the answer is no - you just have to put clothes on them. A bikini will do... (or swim trunks for boys, of course. I think Luke would look a bit strange in a bikini, LOL)

Zarat, you have said that creativity and the TOS do not function together. But you haven't stated anything specific. I'm getting the impression from your post that you were happier when the marketplace accepted all kinds of sexual-orientated products?

The decision to remove those types of products was made on a business basis. Sales have improved and customer feedback is more positive since that decision was made. Naturally we can't please all people, all the time. Please also remember that Renderosity is based in the US and subject to US laws. US views on some subjects (such as sex) can be quite different to the European view ;-)

cobalt_dream - we've stated before that we are not going to waste the time of a panel of staff making decisions on images which aren't uploaded to Renderosity. We have made the upload guidelines as specific as possible. If you want to upload a thumb which you are not sure on, please email it to me or any other staff member and we will guide you appropriately.

"you are terrifying
and strange and beautiful
something not everyone knows how to love." - Warsan Shire

Well, I would like to morph V4 into Karen and then render her naked in a temple with a sword. Would that be violating the TOS, or just violating Karen, LOL!

Quote - Why not have the nudity filter on by default?
It is.

The reasons for the new policy adoption were many. Not a question of "oh my god I saw a nipple and now I'm scarred for life."

Consistency across the site

Ability to feature images in the newsletter

Not such an "in your face" shock on opening the gallery

I'm sorry if this is "beating a dead horse" all over again.

But that just does not make much sense to me. At least not when I stop and think about it.

Here's why:

First lets look again at the given stated numerous times, reasons for this policy change

#1: "Consistency across the site".
#2: "Ability to feature images in the newsletter "
#3: "Not such an "in your face" shock on opening the gallery"

Yet when I look at those a little more I find that:

1 Banning nudity in thumbnails doesn't provide any additional "consistency across the site" whatsoever.

Because, nudity is still allowed in the main images themselves, its still allowed in certain parts of the marketplace, and it's still allowed here in the forums too. To have any consistency with the rest of the site at all, there'd have to be a site wide ban on nudity as well.

2 Banning nudity in a thumbnail image, does not make it any easier too include an image from the gallery in the newsletter either.

Because obviously if you don't want a nudity in a thumbnail in the newsletter, then it follows that you don't want some other plain thumb in there, that leads to the image with nudity in it either.

3 If folks who don't want to see nudity, were using the nudity filters they were already so graciously, and freely provided by rosity to begin with, then there isn't any "in your face shock" whatsoever.

As they won't see any nudity to begin with.

"I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge." Albert Einstein

Free the freebies!

I volunteer to work on a Karen morph :) Karen can we have an oblique and profile pic of your face please? And perhaps a general idea of body shape, probably too much to ask for 3d.sk style reference photos ;)
ps: I'm entirely serious.

My Freebies

I wanna throw something off in here..{groans from the crowd can be heard}

Now, this isn't directed at anyone, its just something I see often and want to point out one little detail...I see people pointing out all the time that if members dont want to see nudity, they can just enable their nudity filter and all will be well...

Ok, so what happens when Joe Shmoe 'forgets', for whatever reason, to tick the nudity content advisory when he uploads?

Yup, you guessed it..those members who dutifully enabled their filters get hit with nudity no matter what they do

~Jani

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

Quote - Ok, so what happens when Joe Shmoe 'forgets', for whatever reason, to tick the nudity content advisory when he uploads?

Then Joe Shmoe is caught by exactly the same moderatorship as has always been in place, the thumbnail change doesn't address that. Joe Shmoe can still "forget" to upload an acceptable thumbnail, and it's actually a lot less likely that he'd "forget" to set the nudity flag, seeing as you are forced to engage with the pulldown when you post - no such check is placed on the thumbnail. Not that I want to get sucked into this pointless conversation - the policy is aggravating and senseless, but there's obviously no chance it will change no matter how stupid it is shown to be.

My Freebies

"get hit with nudity"
I just don't understand how something so natural as the human form can be offensive. If there's no children or violence involved, what actually is the problem?

Karen1573 said:

Quote - Please also remember that Renderosity is based in the US and subject to US laws. US views on some subjects (such as sex) can be quite different to the European view ;-)

Yes, one simply needs to view American televisions shows like Desperate Housewives a show about women humping anything in or out of pants, not to mention a plethora of advertising showing people of all ages in various forms of undress, in erotice poses, sensuously enticing people to buy. Then there are all the "unrated" DVD versions of movies that are so popular, the warnings of sexual situations prior to many shows airing on television, and let's not forget to mention so called "Pageant's" where children are dressed up like young adults and paraded on stage. I could go on, but I won't...Oh yes, US views on subjects such as sex can be quite different to the European view ;-P

jumpstartme2 said:

Quote - Ok, so what happens when Joe Shmoe 'forgets', for whatever reason, to tick the nudity content advisory when he uploads?

Yup, you guessed it...an alert Moderator or Admin pulls the thumb just like they do now and notifies the member of their infraction, just like they do now. Continued violations are handled the way a TOS violation is handled, with warnings, suspensions, and then banning.

It's all fun and games...
Until the flying monkeys attack!!!

Quote - I just don't understand how something so natural as the human form can be offensive

**
** Nudity doesnt bother me, doesn't bother you, and doesn't bother a good portion of the member-base, but there are those that find it offensive....like was said above, we can't please everyone all the time, but we do try to find a middle ground. :)

Quote - ...an alert Moderator or Admin pulls the thumb

Tainted, are you suggesting that we are not 'alert'? ;) errr.....ahem.. Ok, well..you might be onto something there..Im not always alert, but I am almost always here...2 pm to 6-7 am the next morning with my face on the keyboard so I get some slack on the alert part :laugh:

~Jani

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

**This issue regarding nudity annoys me, not just here but in life generally. All I want is for someone who is offended by this to tell the rest of us just WHAT is so wrong, all I want is an explanation, maybe then I can try to understand.

**

first off, i've never seen anyone say anything about those pictures at all. this is the first time i've seen you or anyone else say anything about it. maybe i've missed ebots, but i can say i've waited several times for responses from moderators and not received any.

and you're avoiding the issue by saying, "check if you're unsure." because each time this comes up, the person wasn't unsure. they knew their figure had a covered breast, or was wearing something, and the staff decided something else. if the judgement didn't seem complex and almost arbitrary, it wouldn't keep coming up. so either the point is, "you should ask even if you are sure, because you probably don't understand our rules," or the people making the decisions need more examples of what they do and don't find acceptable.

and just as a codicil, i've already seen multiple instances of people marking fully clothed figures as nudes (and saying so) due to fear over the new rules. i emphasize fear, because they haven't been at all disrespectful or rebellious. they want to follow the rules, but it's not clear how to.

i'm not debating the rule in general. but this keeps coming up because your implementation of the rule is beyond what average people can understand. this isn't a middle ground, it's a swamp.

Darth_Poserus:
*#1: "Consistency across the site".
#2: "Ability to feature images in the newsletter "
#3: "Not such an "in your face" shock on opening the gallery"

Yet when I look at those a little more I find that:

1 Banning nudity in thumbnails doesn't provide any additional "consistency across the site" whatsoever.

Because, nudity is still allowed in the main images themselves, its still allowed in certain parts of the marketplace, and it's still allowed here in the forums too. To have any consistency with the rest of the site at all, there'd have to be a site wide ban on nudity as well.

2 Banning nudity in a thumbnail image, does not make it any easier too include an image from the gallery in the newsletter either.

Because obviously if you don't want a nudity in a thumbnail in the newsletter, then it follows that you don't want some other plain thumb in there, that leads to the image with nudity in it either.

3 If folks who don't want to see nudity, were using the nudity filters they were already so graciously, and freely provided by rosity to begin with, then there isn't any "in your face shock" whatsoever.

As they won't see any nudity to begin with.
*1. Yes it is consistent. All areas of the site now disallow nudity. (Previously this was only the case within the marketplace.)

We don't want nude thumbnails in the email newsletters; it doesn't follow that we forbid nude pictures. We just don't want members (who may have the nudity filter ticked, only access Renderosity in private, and/or be using a shared email address) spitting coffee across their keyboards when they're checking their morning mail. (Any nude images include the small text warning "Nudity" - just as in the Galleries.)
What if I want to see nudity (which I do) but don't want to be assaulted with a wave of supersized mammaries every time I open the gallery page? Just as, if I like to buy Playboy, but don't expect to find nipples or genitals on the front cover... and if I buy a porn DVD, I might (in fact almost certainly will) find nudity on the box covers, but not a "money shot".
What if I want to refer a friend or relative here to view some of the very fine and tasteful nudes on here... but they're frightened away the first time they enter the gallery, thinking "Man, I didn't realise Kaz was into those sites..."

Just some food for thoughts ;-)

"you are terrifying
and strange and beautiful
something not everyone knows how to love." - Warsan Shire

Cobalt_dream, let me turn this around.
Can you please gives us some examples of wording that you feel is absolute and would be understood by absolutely everybody?

"you are terrifying
and strange and beautiful
something not everyone knows how to love." - Warsan Shire

You can rant all you want about religious nuts and puritanical politicians, but you probably haven't considered the whole issue until you've mentioned greedy lawyers.

As a disclaimer, I am not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV, and I am not privy to the workings and thoughts of Bondware's management or legal departments.

A quick story that I hope will make some sense. Years ago I worked at a printing company. We had a lot of customers of varying types throughout the country. We weren't having a very good quarter, and one of our salesmen, who existed solely on commission, brought in a prospect who published soft core... well, porn is too strong a term; I saw samples, and I'd say the content probably wasn't much worse than the pinups here. However, I was forced to oppose --rather vigorously-- our taking this client on, even though the money looked good. Why? Because under state law at the time (I don't know whether it's changed; I just know that I changed jobs!), I could personally be named in a lawsuit for sexual harrassment if another client happened to walk into my office as I was preparing the soft-core files for printing and got offended at it. I could get into legal hot water, my employer could get into legal hot water, and the soft-core client could get into legal hot water. It wasn't worth the short-term gain, and I eventually prevailed --but not before hearing all the arguments I'm reading in these threads: "What are you, a puritan?" "It's a freedom of speech issue!" "Do nipples scare you?"

Bondware is a company. Bondware likely has a legal department. Bondware's lawyers have likely told Bondware that all the nudity filters in the world won't protect them from an ambulance chaser who sees a chance to make a buck. Yeah, we all know you shouldn't look at unfiltered Renderosity galleries at work, even during lunch. We also all know people do it anyway. The lawyers do, too. The employee would be at risk (no problem; his fault), his employer would be at risk (no problem; they employed an idiot), but the deep-pockets theory of legal wrangling in this country means that even Bondware would be at risk if someone thought there might be some money in it. Even though Bondware would likely win any such challenges, the damage to their bank account and reputation probably make it worth it for their lawyers to dictate that all thumbnails be G-Rated, period. Yes, everyone's still at risk if the user is looking at the full-size nude image when someone walks in and sees a chance to put their kid through college, but the thumbnail policy limits everyone's, um, exposure. We as users can live with that or go somewhere else.

I can't say with any authority that that's Bondware's official position, but as a person who's been in discussions like this at the company level, I bet the lawyers have been involved. Blaming it on individuals who can't handle nudity is convenient, but probably not altogether accurate.

I don't care about nudity (or nudity flags for that matter). The main concern here is clarity - as Cobalt_dream mentions and how this thread started. It seems that not only is nudity a concern, but so is suggestive nudity. This is where the swamp waters roll in and flood paradise.

Nudity is defined as (pulling up Merriam-Webster here, using the most appropriate definition):

3 a : devoid of clothing : UNCLOTHED b : UNDRAPED used of an artistic representation of a human figure especially in sculpture and painting

Now, we can all understand and appreciate that 'see-through' clothing is just as 'revealing' as nudity so that can't be used as a case for non-nudity. The problem then moves onto suggestive nudity - wherein the 'offending' body parts are clothed/draped but that they are suggested through the clothes (contours, for instance).

We must remember that these images are 3D renderings of 3D representations on a computer. 'Suggestive nudity' is of only two basic types: morphed/molded into the clothing for realistic impression by the artist or added by the content creator for similar impression. This means that the suggestive nudity actually resides in the clothes (!). Can clothes be nude?

With the advent of dynamic cloth simulation, there is obviously a third type which is more indicative of reality: clothing that receives its suggestion from the underlying form. But that still, pardon the pun, skirts the issue. Is it considered nudity if a photographer takes a photo of a woman in a dress of fine material and the wind happens to cause features to impress on that dress which are suggestive? I don't think that would get very far in a court of law.

These are murky waters - I suggest the cardboard box/large armor clad clothing approach. :)

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

-- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone

well if you're using satanica's willy then you cant use dynamic cloth with it cos for some reason it tends to mess up. ya have to use a primitive ball instead...so technically they aint nekkid...unless ya think the ball has no clothes on

My biggest problem with the nudity in the thumbnail policy is that the gallery looks like nothing more than a series of head shots. And if the reason for the "no nudity" is to prevent (god forbid) some anal retentive person from seeing nudity then why won't they allow the black strips to hide the naughty parts?

cos it looks less professional if there are loads of black strips all over the gallery

well, for starters, no "you're not showing those parts, but she could be nude" rules. then no, "her genitals and nipples are covered, but it's not technically clothing." and no, "well, if you try and look for it, there might be the outline of a nipple." basically, the same rules that apply to to movies (see splash), tv (see mtv, baywatch, the o.c., etc.), and print (see links i've posted). even back in the day they allowed fig leaves.

you're (collectively) completely out of step with rules for mainstream media if you're pulling thong shots. tv and movie ratings are somewhat arbitrary, but they're a lot more consistent than things are here and now.

you keep talking about with what people might not like to see. there's a lot of art here i don't like. i don't have a right not to be offended. i've sent co-workers to this site without any shame before this rule; and i've sent my parents to see my gallery at rdna after this rule. to be honest, my friends and family would react negatively to, "oh, she likes that kind of site," because it's a place where art is, by and large, very safe. very in the bounds. almost no one takes risks or tries to say anything daring with their work. the new rule only amplifies that, while rdna, which doesn't even have tagging on nudity, promotes daring. i don't think that's a coincidence.

i'm not saying that changing the thumbnail rule is the only solution, but there's definitely been a chilling effect on this gallery. more and more, i see people post, "i tagged this nudity because i was afraid it would get pulled." people are getting fearful about posting under the new rules. if you actually want a gallery that's more than chicks in chainmail and pinups, you're going to have to do something to counteract the atmosphere of censorship. not that you should want people to express more creative ideas or do work that's more conceptually daring. maybe what you want is a lot of safe art that's well executed. that's cool, too. then just come up with some actual visual rules (not perceptual ones), and be exceedingly open and consistent about what you do and don't allow. frankly, i think in that case it would be better to go the daz route, and just make it a contest with submissions and stop trying to control the look of an open gallery with restrictions rather than rewards. if what you want is to compete with other galleries for illustrators, designers and artists in general rather than just in 3d or poser specifically, then something needs to change.

Quote - ...basically, the same rules that apply to to movies (see splash), tv (see mtv, baywatch, the o.c., etc.),...

re: movies (in america)- there are no rules. the MPAA gives an opinion.

http://www.mpaa.org/FlmRat_Ratings.asp

If you make a movie and it gets an R rating, you cannot go to them MPAA and ask what you need to take out to get a PG rating. You must change your film and resubmit.

re: tv - Broadcast television (baywatch, the o.c., etc) are not subject to the same rules as cable tv (Mtv). TV programs (and movies that have been modified for broadcast) are voluntarily rated by the broadcast and cable television networks or by the program distributor. Accuracy and consistency is regulated by the TV Parental Guidelines Monitoring Board.

neither of these rating systems describe their expectations/ratings as explicitly as renderositie's TOS nor do they guarantee consistency.

My Homepage - Free stuff and Galleries

OK, cobalt, you're now changing from saying it's a problem with clarity, to not liking the rules.

Thong shots may be perfectly acceptable on your TV Times or whatever; they're not here.
Edit: And Tyger_Purr is also correct re classification. There's a reason why these things are judged by a panel, as they are here.

Re; rights: I don't have a right to buy stamps at the post office, but when I walk in and ask for some, I expect to get served. I don't have a right to be served without rudeness at a restaurant, or eat my meal in peace without screaming kids banging into my table and giving me a headache, but if it happens, I won't go back. This is about Renderosity doing what's right for Renderosity and a large proportion of the membership.

more and more, i see people post, "i tagged this nudity because i was afraid it would get pulled."

Yes, and when we see this we remove the tag, and contact the artist to educate them. They may or may not update their image notes.

"you are terrifying
and strange and beautiful
something not everyone knows how to love." - Warsan Shire

Karen, you're sidestepping the more important question: Would you like a V4 morph of your face made, so Drifterlee can do a Naked Karen In A Temple With A Sword piece?
edit: actually I'd like to use such for a certain "Ineffable Sadness of Being" piece that you're just begging to have made.

My Freebies

no, i'm not changing. you asked what would be clearer. in a sentence, clearer would be something consistent with the rulings of other bodies. sorry, but i've been in Web design for years, and 90% of the time the answer to "how can we make this less complicated/clearer/simpler/etc.?" is "do it like everyone else." when you don't, you generally cause confusion and 99% of the time, it's an unusable solution no matter what you try to do to make your specific way clear. and i'm talking about a medium that's only been around a little more than a decade and barely has norms, and certainly not fixed ones. you're talking about fighting the norms of industries that have been around most everyone here's life. i'm not sure you can make that more clear. and tyger_purr, i don't believe you are in any way correct. the ratings on tv judged by one body, unless i'm mistaken. and since i've seen pretty much the same videos on random video shows on broadcast as on mtv, i'd even say it's the same standard. there is a difference between what is allowed before and after 10 p.m. but it has nothing to do with cable vs. broadcast.

as for the mpaa, you can say it's an opinion, but i've seen several interviews and documentaries talk about the specific no-nos, and how they've changed over the years. so to me calling their rating an "opinion" rather than a set of rules is splitting hairs.

if you are asking how to be clearer about what seems to be arbitrary consensus- give lots and lots and lots of examples. because i've seen a lot of images allowed that i thought were well outside of the rules applied to images people say they've had pulled. basically, you're saying you want to apply a standard specific to the renderosity staff, and the only way to make that standard clear is to flood people with as much of that standard as there are say, pantene ads and magazine covers that set an alternative standard. or, conversely, magazines behind the counter or in paper covers, parental advisories and r-rated movies. basically, you've got to make your ratings style more public, so it can be second nature to people. since your fighting a pretty huge and well-funded media structure to do that, good luck with that.

Broadcast television is under the auspice of the FCC (in the US). As far as I know, cable television is not (yet) under their auspices. And this is clearly shown in that what you see on the HBO show "BullShit!" for instance (which is not restricted by time) not being seen on broadcast networks (ever). Just pointing that out (my partner worked for PrimeStar, then DirecTV - both satellite tv - I also worked for the former in a consulting capacity).

I also agree with the sentiment that Renderosity is part of a business (Bondware) and must comply with a modicum of consumer-level concern. Personally, it's either a clear delineation must be made in what is and what is not allowed in the galleries or, desiring to allow some sort of artistic freedom, spawn a separate site for the gallery that is not directly tied to the business. Then any one who doesn't want to view nudity (or suggestive nudity) doesn't have to go there. And you can set a clear delineation that isn't at the beck and call of the lawyers... ;)

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

-- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone

you guys are both not reading what i'm writing. i'm talking about the rating system, which is "voluntarily" adhered to by both cable and broadcast. now, i suppose the same stuff could be on tbs as is on hbo. but i'm betting they won't do that for several reasons. but what goes on a station is one thing, how it's rated is another. they don't internally rate, the TV Parental Guidelines Monitoring Board does. mature audiences only is not a tv vs. cable rating, it's one consistent rating system.

hence, as far as i can tell, sex in the city has exactly the same editing to appear on broadcast as it does to appear on non-premium channels.

http://www.tvguidelines.org/ratings.asp

Quote - Re; rights: I don't have a right to buy stamps at the post office, but when I walk in and ask for some, I expect to get served.

In the US, at least, the Post Office can't refuse to sell you stamps, at least as long as you aren't breaking the law while in the Post Office. (And they are open, and they haven't run out of stamps, and you have a way of paying for them etc.)

Quote - as for the mpaa, you can say it's an opinion, but i've seen several interviews and documentaries talk about the specific no-nos, and how they've changed over the years. so to me calling their rating an "opinion" rather than a set of rules is splitting hairs.

I've also read that their standards vary depending on whether the film is from a major studio or not.

Quote - you're avoiding the issue by saying, "check if you're unsure."

Not to mention just a tiny bit of hypocrisy. About a month ago, I was banned for a couple of weeks because I "checked if unsure" on a post. Why? My uncertainty was considered insincere. I even asked whether I had been banned for checking when I shouldn't have or not checking when I should have. The answer? Tight-lipped silence. After all, asking was insincere too, because I knew what I was banned for: I was banned for being bad. Everybody knows what "bad" is!

I spent the two weeks tightening my cilice and mortifying the flesh. Not that I need to mortify it any more than the years have done for me. I also wailed and gnashed my teeth. Very unpleasant business.

And now the moment of truth: Do I check for violence, having mentioned my cilice? Oh what the heck; I'll try not.

M

no, i'm not changing. you asked what would be clearer. in a sentence, clearer would be something consistent with the rulings of other bodies.

That's what I said. You're saying you're unhappy with the rules. You don't want us to rephrase them, you want them to be different.

The owners of the site and the admin of the site have decided on what they want displayed, or not displayed, in thumbnails. Hence, the rules are what they are. If you can suggest some wording which you feel would more clearly explain the rules that are in place, please do.

I understand that not everybody can agree on this topic. (Me, today, personally I would like to ban every image in this gallery that features a cross-eyed model.) If there is confusion, then I will try to allay it. If you're asking for the rules to be changed, then you're more than welcome to post in the Suggestions forum.

--

pjz - thank you, I'm flattered, but I wouldn't be comfortable with that. Being on staff here unfortunately makes one a target for certain groups, and I would be nervous of waking up one morning to find my likeness frankensteined onto Mike's body, or dismembered in buckets, or violating a goat wearing a strap-on, or... well you get the picture. (Or not, I hope, hahaha!)

Of course if you want to create a character which is inspired by my cheery grin then please do, but if it bears a good resemblance then I would ask you not to share that morph. [Although legally I probably couldn't stop you, which is another topic entirely, but I'm sure you'd behave ethically :-) ]

"you are terrifying
and strange and beautiful
something not everyone knows how to love." - Warsan Shire

"Naked Karen In A Temple With A Sword"
Sorry, I know there are serious issues going on here, but I was totally sidetracked by this. I'd love to see this, but just make sure you adhere to the TOS!!

Quote - Not to mention just a tiny bit of hypocrisy. About a month ago, I was banned for a couple of weeks because I "checked if unsure" on a post. Why?

Mick, please don't tell lies in the forums. You were banned for repeatedly, despite many many requests not to do so, continually using the violence, nudity and language tags on posts which contained none of that material. You didn't ask any question, nor did you approach a member of staff at any time.

Thanks.

"you are terrifying
and strange and beautiful
something not everyone knows how to love." - Warsan Shire

Quote - and tyger_purr, i don't believe you are in any way correct. the ratings on tv judged by one body, unless i'm mistaken.

http://www.tvguidelines.org/default.asp

Other Frequently Asked Questions How are programs rated?
Programs are voluntarily rated by the broadcast and cable television networks.

What is syndicated programming, and how is it rated?
Syndicated programs are those programs such as talk shows, game shows, and archived reruns of dramas and sitcoms first run by networks or cable systems, which are purchased by local television stations. The distributor of such programs is usually responsible for rating them.

Who rates a movie that has been edited for television?
Theatrical movies rarely run uncut on broadcast or basic cable network television. The broadcast or basic cable network edits these movies according to the network's standards. After the movie has been modified, it is given a TV Parental Guideline rating. Premium cable networks like HBO and Showtime do run uncut theatrical movies. These movies carry the original MPAA movie rating, in addition to supplemental content advisories provided by the network.

Where do I send complaints about a program's rating?
The TV Parental Guidelines Monitoring Board is responsible for ensuring that the ratings are applied with accuracy and consistency. Individuals can contact the Board via mail, phone, or e-mail to voice complaints

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_content_rating_systems
The TV Parental Guidelines system was first proposed in the United States on December 19, 1996 by the Congress, the television industry and the FCC, and went into effect on January 1st, 1997 on most major broadcast and cable networks in response to public complaints of increasingly explicit sexual content, graphic violence and strong profanity in television programs. It was established as a voluntary-participation system, with ratings to be determined by the individually-participating broadcast and cable networks. It was specifically designed to be used with the V-chip, which was mandated to be built into all television sets manufactured since 2000, but the guidelines themselves have no legal force.

Quote - and since i've seen pretty much the same videos on random video shows on broadcast as on mtv, i'd even say it's the same standard. there is a difference between what is allowed before and after 10 p.m. but it has nothing to do with cable vs. broadcast.

Cable's limitations are self imposed to attract an audiance.

Quote - as for the mpaa, you can say it's an opinion, but i've seen several interviews and documentaries talk about the specific no-nos, and how they've changed over the years. so to me calling their rating an "opinion" rather than a set of rules is splitting hairs.

http://www.mpaa.org/FlmRat_Ratings.asp

They seem to think they are giving an opinion.

"G rating-This is a film which contains nothing in theme, language, nudity and sex, violence, etc. that would, in the view of the Rating Board, be offensive to parents whose younger children view the film.
PG-13 rating- ...A PG-13 film is one which, in the view of the Rating Board, leaps beyond the boundaries of the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language, or other contents, but does not quite fit within the restricted R category.
R rating - In the opinion of the Rating Board, this film definitely contains some adult material.
NC-17 - This rating declares that the Rating Board believes this is a film that most parents will consider patently too adult for their youngsters under 17. "

I did find the PG rating descripton interesting

"The PG rating, suggesting parental guidance, is thus an alert for examination of a film by parents before deciding on its viewing by their children. Obviously such a line is difficult to draw. In our pluralistic society it is not easy to make judgments without incurring some disagreement."

I too have seen interviews and documentaries talk about the specific no-nos. This is where i learned that the MPAA will not tell you specificaly why you are getting a rating.

You may find section The rating process herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPAA_film_rating_system

interesting.

for example
"It is a common misconception that if a movie uses "f**k" in a nonsexual context more than once, it will automatically receive an R rating. In reality, PG-13 movies are routinely allowed two or three uses, such as A Civil Action (which uses it at least 3 times)"

Quote - if you are asking how to be clearer about what seems to be arbitrary consensus- give lots and lots and lots of examples. because i've seen a lot of images allowed that i thought were well outside of the rules applied to images people say they've had pulled. basically, you're saying you want to apply a standard specific to the renderosity staff, and the only way to make that standard clear is to flood people with as much of that standard as there are say, pantene ads and magazine covers that set an alternative standard. or, conversely, magazines behind the counter or in paper covers, parental advisories and r-rated movies. basically, you've got to make your ratings style more public, so it can be second nature to people. since your fighting a pretty huge and well-funded media structure to do that, good luck with that.

The more specific you get, the more often you will have to modify it to meet current standards and to stop people who want to skirt the edge, to find a way to show as much as they can while being technicaly "legal".

Some may say an example of this (and i'm not trying to start a debat on this) would be the Fairy pictures being naked children with wings put on to be technicaly legal as faries are hundreds of years old. likewise with pointy ears being mature elves.

My Homepage - Free stuff and Galleries

I say bring on the cat pictures, since Karen chose to ignore my post about moprhing HER, LOL! This thread is one of hundreds - it seems - on the same topic. Just use your humonoid's face in the thumb. Or their foot. Or the dragon. Or make up a thumb with only text as some folk have done, rather then beating this really dead, rotting and smelling horse. Just a thought.

karen - no, i'm not saying "i'm unhappy with the rules."' otherwise, i'd say it's simpler to get rid of the rule altogether. mainstream and popular media is a horrible standard for an "art" community, and completely at odds with my experience of various professional creative communities and publications. what i'm saying is, to repeat myself, it would be clearer to have rules that everyone is already familiar with. not better, not more conducive to creativity, clearer.

i already said how to promote your renderosity specific standard, which seems to include what people can imagine as well as what's actually visible (i say that purely based on several threads on the issue and people who say they've had their images pulled). again to repeat, show an example, with your reasoning, and do it again and again. repetition is the best way you can set an alternate standard.

oh, and if you want to promote brand and mod opinion, why are staff picks in the forum but not in the galleries?

mickmca - without getting into a debate on altercations, i think the meaning here was check with a mod if unclear, not check nudity, violence, etc. if unclear. same verb, different meanings. general fyi, i'm clarifying just to make it clear that the brouhaha is not about someone who tried to clear their image (or post) with mods first. and because, if i'm not mistaken, the mods do not want people to check nudity or violence if unsure. i do know people have said they've gotten in trouble for that.

AnAardvark - i'm sure money matters; it always does. i never said different.

Drifterlee, I did sort of answer to pjz, sorry I missed that you'd asked a similar question.

If you feel like depicting me dealing out pain to a horrible monster, please feel free. I'd just ask that you not share any morph you created with others, since neither you nor I would have any control over further uses to which it could be put.

"you are terrifying
and strange and beautiful
something not everyone knows how to love." - Warsan Shire

Quote - you guys are both not reading what i'm writing. i'm talking about the rating system, which is "voluntarily" adhered to by both cable and broadcast. now, i suppose the same stuff could be on tbs as is on hbo. but i'm betting they won't do that for several reasons. but what goes on a station is one thing, how it's rated is another. they don't internally rate, the TV Parental Guidelines Monitoring Board does. mature audiences only is not a tv vs. cable rating, it's one consistent rating system.

hence, as far as i can tell, sex in the city has exactly the same editing to appear on broadcast as it does to appear on non-premium channels.

http://www.tvguidelines.org/ratings.asp

Right, rating system wise. But you also inferred something about televised content:

there is a difference between what is allowed before and after 10 p.m. but it has nothing to do with cable vs. broadcast.

Content is controlled by the FCC/broadcasters or not at all. There is also another level to this - televised censorship. Way back (and I can't remember the specifics), broadcasters decided to implement a censor system for what was allowed to be televised (both visuals and language). This, of course, goes beyond the rating system - which is content advisory - and just removes content that is deemed offensive altogether (whether that be a little splice here or a bleep there).

I'm agreeing, just clarifying the point of content control - not ratings. :)

Interestingly, the MPAA has a very general rating system (...,PG, PG-13, R, X,..) whereas the TV Parental Guidelines rating system includes more levels and also includes specific information (AL, N, V, AC, GL, BN, ...) in the form of the Content Advisory.

Now the funny part. Okay, you're talking AV. AV and some music is rated. I've never seen still images rated - is there even a system for such a thing? I don't think that applying an AV rating system to 3D CG still renders makes sense - but there are 'broadcast' style issues when displayed over the internet and not in a restricted/membership context.
What do you think?

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

-- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone

Karen I was just kidding. Since you look underage.

what i'm saying is, to repeat myself, it would be clearer to have rules that everyone is already familiar with.

But that is the same as saying "change the rules". Our rules are NOT those used by the film board, the tv industry, the magazine industry, or any other.

i already said how to promote your renderosity specific standard, which seems to include what people can imagine as well as what's actually visible (i say that purely based on several threads on the issue and people who say they've had their images pulled).*

I think there must be some misunderstanding here. Let me state again:
If a thumb shows a human figure without clothes, it will be removed.*
If a thumb shows the genitals, either outright or through transparent clothing, it will be removed.
If a thumb shows female nipples or aureolae, either outright or through transparent clothing, it will be removed.
If a thumb shows more buttocks than would be hanging out of a standard bikini, either outright or through transparent clothing, it will be removed. (IE, no dental-floss thongs, and no butt "cleavage".)

If a thumb has language that is sexually suggestive, or effectively a "censored" type statement, or uses black bars/dots/blurs over the genitals/breasts/butt, it will be removed.

*No, we won't be removing head and shoulder shots where the female model doesn't have clothing visible on her shoulders. Why would we? She is not obviously naked - she could be wearing a tube top or strapless bra or anything else.
Conversely, if a figure is arranged in that nice artistic way where the hands and legs are posed to cover the genitals and breasts, but the figure is quite obviously naked - yes, that would be removed. Because the model is wearing no clothes.

Now something you mentioned earlier and I forgot to recap on - outlines of nipples. If the material is opaque (i.e. not transparent) then it's fine. "Coathook weather" happens, LOL. However, if the material is transparent and the aureolae/nipple can be seen through the fabric, then yeah, that would be removed. (And that's why we tend to take these things to a panel - to make sure we're not relying on one person's eyesight.)

And remember - when I say "removed" - I'm not talking about the image being deleted or the person being warned, or whatever. I'm talking about the thumb being replaced with a non-nude one OR the standard Renderosity content advisory.

OK - I really really hope everyone is as tired as I am, because I'm going offline and to bed. Night all.

"you are terrifying
and strange and beautiful
something not everyone knows how to love." - Warsan Shire

Drifterlee, you're sweet. I'll be 34 in a couple of weeks :m_laugh:

"you are terrifying
and strange and beautiful
something not everyone knows how to love." - Warsan Shire

I know. You looked even younger in that other hair style. Trust me. It's great to look young. Enjoy it!

Quote - > Quote - Not to mention just a tiny bit of hypocrisy. About a month ago, I was banned for a couple of weeks because I "checked if unsure" on a post. Why?

Mick, please don't tell lies in the forums....

You didn't ask any question, nor did you approach a member of staff at any time.

Of course, it would be another lie to say "Did too!" I asked the question in the thread itself, and the ban was issued within hours. Fortunately, I didn't keep the emails, and unfortunately, even if I had, it's against the TOS to actually post what the admins email to us. So believe whom you prefer.

For the record, is telling lies in the forums a hanging offense too? Like being insincere?

Inquiring minds... No wait, I got nailed last time I said that.

M

um, drifterlee, some have had images pulled for having thumbnails with only text. otherwise, i personally would do that. and it keeps coming up because it keeps being a problem. just as a mention, again working on the web for years, if your users keep having a problem with your site and you don't fix it, you'll keep hearing about it until you either don't have the problem or don't have the users. no matter how many users post saying, "the link is right there," or "i don't see the problem with how this app works," if it's a problem for a "large proportion of members," then a minority of people who do have the problem will say so.

the same way people who don't want to hear about a topic will post cat pictures, despite the ease of just not reading the thread ;D. people make different choices, and react differently to the same things. it would be boring otherwise.

tyger_purr- that is a very long post saying exactly what i already linked to. tv ratings are through one body, and voluntary for both broadcast and cable. you are the one conflating premium and standard channels, and presuming that for some reason a single corporation would bother to have a different standard for standard cable stations and broadcast (in addition to the difference between premium and broadcast), even though there's no benefit in having more than two standards, no evidence they've implemented more than that, and the shows would still get a different rating.

but getting away from specifics, i can say i've seen the same videos with the same bleeps, the same episodes with the same gaps, and the same ads on broadcast and standard cable. the whole reason this keeps coming up is because most corporate media, the media most people experience, is pretty consistent across distribution methods, while here it's very different. if everyone had to be a lawyer to obey the laws, then they'd be broken a lot more frequently than they already are. things have to be consistent to be instinctively understood and applied. i'd say being simple and consistent is the most important aspect of usability, and that goes for anything from web apps to kitchen appliances to civil engineering.

karen - we're still talking cross purposes. first off, you asked how to make this more clear. your standards are obviously unclear, or there wouldn't keep being problems. it's that simple. you're keeping them, and that's fine, it's just against clarity and usability. but you didn't ask, "how do we keep things unclear?" you asked, "how do we make things more clear?" it has nothing to do with being happy, or liking things. it has to do with a solution that does what you say you want to acheive and is usable. if you don't have the flexibility of changing implementation, fine, but it has nothing to do with me changing anything i've said. if what you wanted to know was, "how do you suggest we change our support?" that's an altogether separate question, but already answered.

i didn't say restate your rules that people are already having a problem with. i said show examples. not talk about examples, show them. of real art work. if you can get permission, of real mistakes people have made, in either direction. for instance, instead of restating rules that don't have anything to do with any of the problems i've seen posted, why don't you actually post versions of thongs that are ok and ones that are not ok? especially if they include popular marketplace items? as another instance of ambiguity, iirc, in one thread, it was said that an image that actually did not have a nude figure would have to be tagged with a warning because it looked like the figure was nude behind a shield.

but the best thing i can say is analyze how daz does it. because i've never seen anyone complain about their rules, other than for figure textures in their store. but then, i've also never seen anyone get a warning or banned for posting inappropriate materials, either. mods just edit the offending image(s) (in the forums, the only one of the galleries is partially open).

and on that note, i'm done. i've made my recommendation and more than said my piece. i don't intend to debate nuances of tv programming standards.

drifterlee, I want that cat! But, must love hockey. ;P

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

-- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone

It's hawkfyr's cat. I borrowed him.

This one is my favorite.

""This issue regarding nudity annoys me, not just here but in life generally. All I want is for someone who is offended by this to tell the rest of us just WHAT is so wrong, all I want is an explanation, maybe then I can try to understand.""
Stormchaser:

I was one of the people who initially had a problem with the way the gallery looked. No I didn't complain. I just didn't look at anything labled content advisory (since Im wicked smart like that and clicked the filter) unless I knew the artist.

I feel though that the way the policy was implimented was asinine beyond belief. Not to mention moderators refusal to comment on various magazine covers to clear up confusion. I have heard and seen the extremes that some works were taken down due to the fact that the viewer could "imagine" that the subject might be nude beyond the scope of the viewable work.
that one gets a big 0.0 from me.

I've seen both sides of the issue. There is some work on this site that is just beautiful - my own preference is nude art (NOT porn). But my suspicion was raised when a member had a problem with one of his pics being removed because of a poke through nipple. It was really no more than a really large breasted woman half naked. I asked what meaning he was trying to convey with this and he said "none" - um ok. Count me among the few but I don't consider a giant boobed woman standing half naked - art? Alas put on the other shoe and who am I to judge.

Anyway that's the perspective of someone who somewhat saw the need for some change. Though I don't think the change that was necessary is possible, and I don't think that the change that was implemented is the one that best suits the situation.

I also shudder to think of all the works past and present we would lose if all nude children were banned. Unfortunately I think the pervert lies in the minds of those who don't want it rather than those who do, they are the ones who see a cherub and think child porn - very unfortunate.

In the end I think the site was in a pickle - some of the work was previously very questionable and the gallery was being cluttered with gianted boobed mannequins. Great art getting cluttered in with that. I think they chose to err on the side of least damage and you can probably guess that no one solution would have pleased everyone.

On the other hand - they could care a little more about members confusion and articulate the guidelines more clearly (imagining she might be nude so therefore she is ~wtf~) And buttcheeks are nudity? As a great man once said (Robert Barone) "Its not my butt, just the fatty tissue at the top of my thighs"

I am: aka Velocity3d

jjroland - I understand the points you have made & I understand the gallery & thumbnail issue. My question was a general one to do with why people find nudity offensive. I just fail to see how anyone could be shocked by clicking on a picture & seeing an exposed nipple!

Snickers That is my fave cat pic too Drifterlee :laugh:

~Jani

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

""**My question was a general one to do with why people find nudity offensive. I just fail to see how anyone could be shocked by clicking on a picture & seeing an exposed nipple!""

**yeah can't answer you there, as those VERY people had to deliberately choose to see nudity on thier profile. I think there are some ppl in the world who just like to bitch probably. Same type of ppl who go to boxing matches and complain about the violence Im sure...

I am: aka Velocity3d

We now have four cats. My daughter brought home a young wild barn cat, and he thinks he should climb into the fridge. he also figured out how to jump onto the kitchen counter and steal a piece of chicken off the platter - bad kitty!

I think jjroland hit it right on the head. If you don't want to see nudity you have the option not to see it.
I would just like a clear HONEST reason for the thumbnail issue. I can deal with whatever (inane) reason they come up with, however I would just like the true motivating reason for it.
At the end of the day sadly, you can either put up with it or post on other sites. And as we have seen, there are artists whose style is on the racier side are leaving to do exactly that.

it was said that an image that actually did not have a nude figure would have to be tagged with a warning because it looked like the figure was nude behind a shield.

I have heard and seen the extremes that some works were taken down due to the fact that the viewer could "imagine" that the subject might be nude beyond the scope of the viewable work.

This has been clarified and is not the case.

PerfectN, we have stated over and over and over the reasons for the change. I listed them - again - on page 1 of this thread. If you choose not to believe them, that's fine.

Mick - Here is the post; your ban was for setting the nudity, violence and language flags when your post contained none, despite repeated communications from staff (none of which you have ever replied to, as far as I am aware) requesting that you not do so and repeating and explaning the rules again and again. You can see that the post has been edited at 7.38am - that was me removing the tags. The email I sent you quite clearly stated what the ban was for. Not "asking questions". The post doesn't contain any question. Your ban was issued some hours later after discussion between myself and my colleagues.

We don't hang people for TOS violations (much as we might sometimes individually feel like it.)

"you are terrifying
and strange and beautiful
something not everyone knows how to love." - Warsan Shire

Quote - Of course if you want to create a character which is inspired by my cheery grin then please do, but if it bears a good resemblance then I would ask you not to share that morph. [Although legally I probably couldn't stop you, which is another topic entirely, but I'm sure you'd behave ethically :-) ]

I hadn't thought of distributing it, although I guess I hadn't worked it out. How about I give you the result and you can decide whether to give it to Drifterlee (edit: and to be precise, I won't give it to anyone else)? PM me if you're truly interested, I won't keep bugging you about it.

My Freebies

How about having the nudity, violence and whatever other scary filter there is, on by default for uploads?

So you have to untick them?

No more "oops I forgot". If it's unticked, then it's deliberate.

Silke

How about having the nudity, violence and whatever other scary filter there is, on by default for uploads?

This is already in place - you have to select "nudity" or "violence" or "both" or "none" before you can move on.

Pjz, I'll drop you a mail :-)

"you are terrifying
and strange and beautiful
something not everyone knows how to love." - Warsan Shire

Karen, I just read the "reasons" for the changes.
Why the hell would you want the gallery to look consistent?? You mean a series of boring head shots, fractals and landscapes?
The ability to use shots in newsletters? Here's a sugggestion - don't use the "offending" ones in your newsletters.
The shock of seeing nudity when you open the gallery - better to err on the side of the mundane - you don't know how many people will fall into cardiac arrest seeing any form of nudity.
Rendo is being reduced to a homogenized bland site run by a group of anal retentives.
I think the reasons are assinine and there could have been better ways to address your concerns.
Noticed how many artists are leaving?

Anyway, I've had my fill of the endless debate. It is what it is...

Karen, your new avatar makes you look EVEN YOUNGER! Good for your! A couple of days ago I read a thread/post in the forum where someone (I think from Australia) was swearing British-style and I could hardly understand a world they said except "bloody". Someone told them to watch their language, It was really quite funny if you are not British. So swearing is relevant to the listener/reader. Now, how about some nice bland text thumbnails: ex: Naked Vicky 1, 2 ,3 4 in Temple; Naked Vicky (or Miki or whoever) surrounded by attractive props, car, or whatever; semi-naked alien gals; Man (this is a rare one) with naked naughty bits; Naked Vicky artistically painted in skimpy clothes; and so on. Just the word "Naked" will make people look, LOL!

Now, iIpost this doggy pic, since the cat pics aren't working. I warn you, it will shock you. Not so much because it is a pic of a cute little doggy's rear end, but that the owners claim (jokinly I hope) that you can see Jesus rising from the dead on the dog's butt. (I'm am not kidding) They had a whole web site on this. Here's the pic. I warned you. The dog's name is Angus.

I found the URL. http://www.calarts.edu/~jwhite/gbj/index.html

@Karen

Quote - So for both of you, you have not told me what type of images you feel you are prevented from displaying here...

Umm. So what? I can expect a 3 day ban for not answering correctly? :p
The "..." almost make a threat.

...

The pictures that I wanted to post are not longer relevant because I got no permission to publish them. Like I wrote before...
But if, the only concern would be the part of the TO(denied)S where all kind of violence against living beings is covered.
Other than that I had no problems so far and will have none in the next couple weeks or months.
Work...

Quote - Zarat, you have said that creativity and the TOS do not function together. But you haven't stated anything specific. I'm getting the impression from your post that you were happier when the marketplace accepted all kinds of sexual-orientated products?

I'm not expectig an answer regarding any specific problem.
Those artists who feel their creativity is limited by the TOS said this already over the past years and also in this thread.
I only expect some solution for the problem that many decide to move to other sites for the rules are less restrictive there. For example DA. DA is ... well, nothing good at all, but seemingly there are less problems with TOS while there's no porn all over the place.

I would be happier if there were not around 20 marketplaces to watch for new stuff.
The impression that you got is conditional.

IF many small marketplaces would be brought together in a few larger ones
*** THEN*** it's inevitable that the filtering is less restrictive
*** ELSE*** it simply won't work and things will develope as they do.

That should fix your impression...
Yeah, my post was a bit long and one can miss a line or two. :)
It's not what I find at RMP that annoys me, but simply that not only artists move elsewhere but also vendors. With the result of many small marketplaces.
And I'm not talking about all kind of products. It's fine if there are 4 MP's, ReRo, DAZ, Renderotica, and some MP solely for architectural stuff.

Quote - The decision to remove those types of products was made on a business basis. Sales have improved and customer feedback is more positive since that decision was made. Naturally we can't please all people, all the time. Please also remember that Renderosity is based in the US and subject to US laws. US views on some subjects (such as sex) can be quite different to the European view ;-)

Well, if you say so then it's fine.
There is still the option to keep all stuff located within 1 domain.
2 or more marketplaces for different types of stuff and 2 or more main galleries for different types of art.
There could easily be a listing of all written stuff and one for fairies, one for birthday/holiday stuff, one for more sexual oriented art and maybe even one big boob only gallery.
And for gods sake put all images that contain nudity in a separate gallery.

This way no one can complain about the nipples (or nudes) of fear and loathing that appear "unwanted" on screen.
If one enters a certain gallery under these circumstances, he/she should be aware what to find there.
The controversial US-views on some subjects won't matter in this case because the user decided to enter a gallery. No accidents, nothing unwanted. With US-laws that shouldn't be a problem.

And yes, it's possible to set up a website like this.
There must now be an really really good excuse why not to go this way.
Why not to please more people while at the same time not making more feel offended.

The couple 1000,- USD to write all the needed code shouldn't e the problem here.
It must be some other reason. It's also not a real problem to come to this solution. Every average human being would end at this point pretty soon.

If it's really the money then maybe ReRo want to collect donations to get this done.

Sorry but I don't get it.
To me it only seems like some responsibles make a problem out of something that is none.
After all, no one asked for something like a unified field theory. Only some HTML and so on...

It's like trying to teach a dog how to read and write. If there's any reaction at all, then it's always the same 3 noises. But I'm curious what we will see first: a dog that can read and write or a good management for ReRo . Prolly we will rather see an dog getting it's PhD than the latter.
I could almost feel pity for such an management.

The horse is not dead yet. It's only dead if it's completely fragged and scattered across the web.

Umm. So what? I can expect a 3 day ban for not answering correctly? :p
The "..." almost make a threat.
What, an ellipsis is threatening? That's a new one.

And yes, it's possible to set up a website like this.
There must now be an really really good excuse why not to go this way.
Why not to please more people while at the same time not making more feel offended.
Because that's not the website we want.
We don't want to segregate nudity.
That certainly wouldn't please me, nor would I imagine it would please a majority of users. It's never come up as a request in the annual surveys (to my knowledge), whereas the nude thumbnails has been brought up time and again.

And I'm not talking about all kind of products. It's fine if there are 4 MP's, ReRo, DAZ, Renderotica, and some MP solely for architectural stuff.
OK, so you approach PoserPros, Raunchyminds, PoserCorner, Netherworks, RuntimeDNA, and all other "small" markets you can find and ask them to close down because you'd prefer to just visit 3 websites. You let us know what they say ;-)

Or better yet, approach the people who sell their products at those sites and ask them to move to Renderosity (or Daz, or Rotica) because it makes your life easier, and see what they say.

You're trying to deny market forces. This is capitalism at work, my friend. People will broker where they want to and buy where they want to. It's voting with your wallet - democracy and capitalism hand in hand. No?

"you are terrifying
and strange and beautiful
something not everyone knows how to love." - Warsan Shire

well, as someone who had an image removed recently because it depicted a girl wearing a thong, and that was what the thumbnail was concentrating on, I'd like to give my 2 cents here...

i did feel the "rejection syndrome" when I logged into my account and I saw that my last image was not there anymore... "my image doesn't have ny nudity, why the heck did it get pull off" was what i thought, I guess similar to what meltz felt... and there it was, the site mail...

it explained my model showed too much buttocks, even if she was not naked.. so the moderator put the "nudity" tag for me but still removed the picture because of the thumbnail... adviced me to send her a new thumbnail and that would be the end of it...

I had a really short exchange of ideas with her, but in the end, Renderosity is her house (so to speak), and she's representing the owner of the house regarding what "framed pictures" I can hang in their walls or not... so, I just took like 30 seconds of my frugging time, I created a new thumbnail and sent it to her.. hours later, my image was back on...

what I'm getting at is : what's the big deal? I don't own rednerosity,a nd certainly don't pay for its hosting or any of its operation costs... it is not my website, so, if I'm a guest here, I should adhere to the rules.. otherwise, I just should leave, which is what pretty much everyone has concluded here...

just saying: rules are there for a reason, don't get mad because people who are supposed to inforce those rules are doing their job... in the end, meltz decission to leave the galleries is the perfect one, to my consideration... me? I'm just NOT gonna use thumbnails of girls wearing thongs anymore, but I'm still for damn sure gonna keep posting them in the actual full size image (with the nudity tag, of course, lesson learned). I'ts so simple I don't even see where the darn issue is...

I have always stated to people concerned about the new policy, if your not sure ask a moderator or coordinator. I myself love helping people. Renderosity has always had a TOS. and a simple we are not going to except anymore nudity in thumbnails is pretty simple. Read the TOS or ask your Moderator or Coordinator its not that difficult to work together and thrive as a community.
We have over 3 million members here. Why is it that only ten percent still don't get IT were as the majority like or dislike the policy still get IT ?

Over all I still say ask a Moderator or Coordinator of the gallery ..Part of there job is to help you the member out .I want to see everyones post your Image up in the galleries but lets work together abide by the rules and agian If not sure ask away

sgtprotex1@netscape.net

University of Pheonix Alumni 2008
AA Criminal Justice Degree
BA Criminal Justice Degree

Currently study in Parapsychology

SITE WIDE CONSISTENCY

Sorry to be the one to be the bearer of bad news, but there is no "sitewide consistency".

Not when we all can see nudity in a banner ad at the top of the page, wich if I'm not mistaken is at the top of every page one visits at the site.

There's not any "sitewide consistency" when there's still nudity allowed in the gallery images themselves.

And there's not any "sitewide consistency" when there's still nudity in promo pics in some of the stores over in the mp.

Please stop trying to pee on our legs and tell us it's raining. I seriously cannot understand why ya'll just don't come out and admit what we all know to be the real reason for this anyways.

"I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge." Albert Einstein

Free the freebies!

Darth,

There is NOT nudity allowed in the banner ads?? Please let us know which specific banner(s) you are referring to?

Also there is NO nudity allowed on Mktplace thumbnails or the first promo image. Just on promo 2, 3 or 4.. So like the gallery, you have to click into something to see the nudity. Not sure exactly what you are referring to??

Oh and yes we still allow nudity in the full image just like we do in the 2, 3 and 4th promos on the Marketplace. We never said we were doing away with nudity altogether so again I don't know what you are referring to?

Im offended by that male chest two postes up. lol j/k ApolloMaximus rocks.

this is something i can see someone getting offended over though lol so siilly!

Someone prior mentioned that "renderosity is not my house...etc". Yes, that's true to a point. However rendo survives on people visiting their house, and despite the bullshit that karen spouts as to the reasons for the changes - nothing will change until the "outrage" that people feel effects rendos wallet. The underlying reason for any change in business is to increase the bottom line.
Yes, its rendo's house and if you want to use their house you have to abide by their rules. But the rules were once different. And it is THAT that bothers people. We once had the right to wear our shoes in the house, and now rendo won't allow us to. At the end, it is their right to do so, just as it is our right to leave or at the very least bitch about how we don't like the new rules - hoping that enough people will join in and force a change. Sadly, I don't see that happening. Some people don't "understand why the big deal", then I look at their gallery and understand why they don't get it. Im a published pinup artist - that is what I do, Im not into landscapes, or fractals or cutsypie pictures of fairys. And I would challenge anyone to say that, left to its own devices, sexual pictures would be far more popular than any other of the aforementioned pics. And im not talking about the "hug club" pictures. Wherein, such and such posts a mediocre picture at best (Im not talking topic, im talking technical execution), dedicates said picture to someone and then receives endless praise usually ending with "hugs" or "kisses". No offer of improvement, or truth anywhere to be found. And I suspect that is these people (I imagine they have lots of cats) that spend the most money in the marketplace and therefore have the biggest voice.

PerfectN,

Things always change that is a fact of life so there is no way to avoid change. This site and others like it have all made changes over the years as things evolve.

Nudity is still allowed here as long as its within our TOS the only thing that has changed as far as this thread topic is considered is the THUMBNAIL of an image, NOT the full image.

The reasons Karen stated taken from the Front Page article are not "bullshit" reasons, its THE reasons, not made up, fabricated reasons but the absolute exact truth of why we felt the need to bring about this new policy. You may not like it or agree with it but I can assure you there are no "underlying" reasons that we didn't list. I really really really am amazed at the fact that there has to always be some conspiracy or underlying secret reason for changes according to a small minority of members.

You may not like or choose to actually hear what I and other staff are saying but it doesn't change the fact that the real reasons are what they are and there is nothing more to it than that no matter how much you try and argue it. It is what it is, all laid out on the table in the Front page article.

And one more thing, its a very generalized statement to make to say that the members that don't feel this new policy is a big deal are all members that according to you have galleries that either doesn't have any nudity in it or don't measure up (I'm assuming one of these reasons is what you meant by that statement above)....If not, maybe you can clarify what you meant by ALL the ones saying its not a big deal after looking at their galleries makes you get why they say that.

Let me clairify ... People that don't feel that the changes or policies are a big deal are generally people that don't post images that now violate the new terms. People that post fractals will not be affected by the TOS.
Get it?
And yes, you and the other mods have made it painfully clear as to the reasons, let me be as equally clear. I run many companies. Changes are not implimented unless they will improve/ and/or effect the course of business and therefore INCREASE business. You are either naive or not privy to the MOTIVATING reasons as to why these changes were implimented. Yes. I get it - here are the reasons (assinine as they are) - BUT WHAT PROMPTED THE NEED FOR THESE CHANGES. WHAT WAS THE MOTIVATING PROMPT?
Did I claify it for you now?

I can assure you that I am not in the least bit "naive"....

I beg to differ on the statement that "generally" most members that don't see this as a big deal is because they don't post nudes. I don't agree with that assessment at all. But we can agree to disagree on that one.
Its not "images" that may now violate the new policy we are discussing, its the thumbnails.

And as the Community Manager I was involved from beginning to end on the discussions that led us here.
What prompted the need for the change were all the reasons listed as we have said over and over and over again. Its not what you want to hear so therefore you are choosing not to get it. The motivating prompt were ALL the reasons that kept coming up time after time after time (consistency throughout the site with policies, the problems with images that couldn't be placed in the newsletter, the TOP page that is the landing page for the galleries, the growing number of in your face T&A in the thumbs, etc) and it became something that didn't need to be put off any longer. We had to put it off awhile due to the conversion of the site but after that point, it was time to put this new policy in place.

Changes are not always about MONEY..We make changes on the Community side alot that have nothing to do with money. It may be about the look of the site, the members requests (and NO not buyers I'm talking about, just members that enjoy the site) that kind of reason. I don't know what kind of "companies" you ran but with this site there is of course the Marketplace side and the Community side, its a fine balance but every decision we make on the Community side isn't always about the money/bottom line.

Did I "claify" for you now? Lets be honest, for you it won't be clarified because you just don't agree with it and that is fine..It would be "naive" on my part or anyone on the staffs part to expect that everyone in this large member base would all see things the same way. I won't debate with the same question over and over again. Its been answered and whether or not you get it is up to you. We've answered honestly and tried to explain as best we can and in the end that is all we can do.

On a personal note (not speaking as an admin but just a person that enjoys art) I LOVE it when I see a thumbnail that is creatively done without all the T&A cause it makes me so anxious to peek at the full image that I know contains artistic nudity because of the flag. When all that can be done is a thumbnail with T&A in it, I don't care to really go any further because whats the point really? I've seen it. Artistic nudity I like but I don't care to see a thumbnail that either reveals it all in the thumb or is just a T&A hit button

This is my personal opinion.

Some Admin finally...
Well that doesn't make it more official than any answers of some moderator but I will believe that this thumbnail decision and the TOS were done with only the best intentions in mind.

If these were the motivations then it's fine. Not that I think the whole result will be good only because the intentions are. I no way. It's only good to know what the intentions are.

Besides the erudite "babbling" about economics and the sophisms of Karen this one made me laugh tho:

I can assure you that I am not in the least bit "naive"....

Reminded me of someone I know who said this pretty often and with some variations.
It's an embedded systems engineer. And now this "least bit" together with "Site Admin" brought up some memories... "well, even with the best ECC there will be BSOD's..."

No insult intended...
Actually I like pugnacious admins. Tempts me to flame all day long. :p

Maybe the reason for these discussions was that the intention appeared implausible after the short explanation in that Front Page article.
Most companies tell so many things for why they did something while soon after it becomes obvious what the true intentions were. The reaction is only based on some sort of traumatization, so to say.

The naive part could be to believe that everybody put so much faith into some words of some stranger that he accepts them as a truth.

Well said Zarat!
Regarding StaceyG statement:
"I can assure you that I am not in the least bit naiive" - never state what you can't imply.

Quote - Regarding StaceyG statement:
"I can assure you that I am not in the least bit naiive" - never state what you can't imply.

That is actually the funniest thing I have read in a long long time, lol....

Which further reinforces the statement.

::))))

I should unsubscribe from this thread, but I am interested in how long it will get. This is the first thread where cat pictures did nothing, LOL!

Quote - I should unsubscribe from this thread, but I am interested in how long it will get. This is the first thread where cat pictures did nothing, LOL!

True! How about some pixie land?

"It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to say." - Ghandi

Acadia, that is the second funniest site I have ever seen, after Angus the dog's. How can you not love this Pixie Guy?????

Maybe someone can do a morph, texture and clothes for Hiro of him- would fit, I think. Is that Daz's Prince Charming Hair or Bang Hair?

Actually, this is real from BBC Feb. 24, 2006.

Sudan man forced to 'marry' goat

Map of Sudan

**A Sudanese man has been forced to take a goat as his "wife", after he was caught having sex with the animal.**The goat's owner, Mr Alifi, said he surprised the man with his goat and took him to a council of elders.

They ordered the man, Mr Tombe, to pay a dowry of 15,000 Sudanese dinars ($50) to Mr Alifi.

"We have given him the goat, and as far as we know they are still together," Mr Alifi said.

Mr Alifi, of Hai Malakal in Upper Nile State, told the Juba Post newspaper that he heard a loud noise around midnight on 13 February and immediately rushed outside to find Mr Tombe with his goat.

"When I asked him: 'What are you doing there?', he fell off the back of the goat, so I captured and tied him up."

Mr Alifi then called elders to decide how to deal with the case.

"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife," Mr Alifi told the newspaper.

After that story, how can anyone worry about TOS or nudity in thumbnails?

Quote - I should unsubscribe from this thread, but I am interested in how long it will get. This is the first thread where cat pictures did nothing, LOL!

The cat pic part I don't get...
I mean if it's some thread about cat pics, then there would maybe some reactions to said pictures.
But this is not a thread about cats. - So what should cat pics actually do here?
Is there something behind "cat pictures" that goes beyond that's it is a picture showing a cat?
Like some geek code or such. Id est, would you expect dog-, bird- or car pictures doing anything different than cat pictures?
Could also be my english that fails on this one. I'm curious about the logic behind it tho... ^.^

:biggrin:

My brain is just a toy box filled with weird things

"It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to say." - Ghandi

""Could also be my english that fails on this one. I'm curious about the logic behind it tho... ^.^""

The kids on the gaming forums have a term for it, it's called "+1" or "<3 Juan" or to be specific "post farming". That's all I can really gather about the incessant need to hijack any thread not of interest to said person - with post after post that people interested have to scroll past.

I like goats myself.
and hey while Im at it:

+1

I am: aka Velocity3d

The +1 format has been deprecated for some time, the new standard is:
postcount++;

My Freebies

well, I'm totally at sea. situation normal. and pixie-dude should dress to the left IMVHO. I hope they get the galleries all fixed up to the original complainant's satisfaction.

Thanks for enlighten me on that matter, jjroland and pjz99. :)
Seems I'm getting really old, lol...

postcount++ or +1 would also be good replacements for the "wonderful", "great work" and "excellent" comments on pictures.

Quote - I hope they get the galleries all fixed up to the original complainant's satisfaction.

I hope that as well. Sadly these threads end way to often in flame wars and all kind of insults.
Not that I'm an exception to this if a certain point is reached...

How the hell did this arguement degrade from dealing with bullshit rendo policies to pictures of cats and infeminate guys in green tights?

Dunno,...we just like cats?

Mylemonblue, that is one I haven't seen before LOL! too funny :laugh:

~Jani

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

Totally awesome shark pic.. To those of you who obviously have not learned the time-honered Renderosity forum customs, cat pictures signify the thread has gone on too long and it is time to "give it a rest". Rules are rules, and if you do not like the rules go someplace else.

And it is that submissive "ill just accept it" type of attitute the prohibits change.
Rules are rules - If I dont like something Im going to bitch about it until I either want to leave or am forced to leave.
"Time honored" tradition" of indicating a thread has gone on too long - it too post pictures of cats. If you think the post has gone on too long - unsubscribe to it and post your cat pics in the gallery. As you said if you don't like something go somewhere else.
Unfortunately since input of any value has declined and the only ones adding anything related to this thread, seem to be jjroland, zarat and pjz unsubscribing seems to be the only thing left to do.
Continue to add your cat pictues ad infinatum.

Quote - And it is that submissive "ill just accept it" type of attitute the prohibits change.

No, actually site admin prohibits change, now that this policy is in place. I don't know why they bother to entertain discussion, they clearly have no plans of changing it no matter what anyone thinks. Bitch all you like, it won't get you anywhere. I agree with you completely regarding the thumbnail rules, not so much for freedom of expression reasons but simply because under the current rules, it's impossible to see or post a thumbnail that accurately represents a flagged image. At times I wish site admin would just come out and say what is painfully obvious, that they really don't care too much what individuals think, this is just how it's going to be until further notice. Instead we have 5 page threads that are littered with cat pics and vitriol. Whatever. ^_^

My Freebies

I just deleted my images from the gallery. I uploaded an image yesterday, and nothing. People are looking for lusty images, and giving credit on that kinda stuff. I am not in that category. Not going to waste my time. Let them have it.

Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL

Subject: @#$!! THE RENDEROSITY GALLERY!!!