Not that this isn't a gorgeous character, but I've had gallery images pulled for thumbnails that showed less boob.  Are the rules more lenient for the ones who are making the site money?

¤~Giolon~¤

¤~ RadiantCG ~¤~ My Renderosity Gallery ~¤

I see that Giolon has observed some inconsistencies in the rules,

I've had gallery images pulled for thumbnails that showed less boob. 

Out in the real world, the rules can be even stranger ... I know of an instance
where a store manager has been charged with obscenity because of some
promotional murals ... one of the confiscated images showed just a little of
the side of the model's breast. 

Are the rules more lenient for the ones who are making the site money?

Sorry, that's too complex a question for me to answer. 

In any case, you might want to read and join this discussion thread, 
"Censorship v. Advertising v. Art? [nudity]" ... please bring 'Tanya' along for show and tell. 

Comments ... Please ...

--
Martin

Quote -

Not that this isn't a gorgeous character, but I've had gallery images pulled for thumbnails that showed less boob.  Are the rules more lenient for the ones who are making the site money?

No. The rules are not more lenient for lead in pictures.

The image example you post is fine.  She is wearing "pasties" which cover the areola and the nipple.  And you can see that she has a pantie bottom on as well, so she is not nude.

Breast skin doesn't automatically equate to being "nude".  According to the TOS here, if the nipples and areola are completely covered, the figure is not nude.

"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 is correct.

---

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

What Giolon is trying to point out is that his/her gallery thumbs, which covered more, were pulled yet marketplace images such as the one being used as an example are allowed.   That is the inconsistency Giolon is pointing out.   I have to admit that I too have wondered why the marketplace tends to allow more leniency than the gallery. 

...... Kendra

Giolon's thumbnail, to my knowledge, violated the thumbnail nudity rules, that's why Giolon was asked for a replacement.

---

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

Don't mistake the intent of this, my thumbnail was pulled ages ago.  I'm just making a comparision in the interest that the rules are applied fairly to all.

This image is from the original front page article showing the required clothed areas for the "new" thumbnail policy:

However, the actual description in the rules only states:
No nudity in thumbnails. This means no clothes, clothes that are transparent or blurring of nude images. 
No areola or nipple exposure, and no transparent fabric.

Here is a comparison of a thumbnail I've had pulled in the past for, and I quote, "A lot more Boob then needed in the thumbnail."

Any amount of boob was too much for the specific moderator at the time.  Here's another iteration that was also rejected for the same reason:

It ended up having to be changed to a headshot.  That thumbnail in the marketplace shows more boob than either of the two thumbnail iterations I have presented, and both pictures unarguably expose far more than the guideline image.  But I will admit, according to a narrow interpretation of the rules, only nipple & areola expposure is prohibited.

So, still I ask, why the different standard?

¤~Giolon~¤

¤~ RadiantCG ~¤~ My Renderosity Gallery ~¤

Quote -
However, the actual description in the rules only states:
No nudity in thumbnails. This means no clothes, clothes that are transparent or blurring of nude images. 
No areola or nipple exposure, and no transparent fabric.

Here is a comparison of a thumbnail I've had pulled in the past for, and I quote, "A lot more Boob then needed in the thumbnail."

Any amount of boob was too much for the specific moderator at the time.  Here's another iteration that was also rejected for the same reason:

It ended up having to be changed to a headshot.  That thumbnail in the marketplace shows more boob than either of the two thumbnail iterations I have presented, and both pictures unarguably expose far more than the guideline image.  But I will admit, according to a narrow interpretation of the rules, only nipple & areola expposure is prohibited.

So, still I ask, why the different standard?

There is no different standard.  In your thumbnail examples above the figure is nude. Yes, the hand is covering the breast and there is no nipple or areola showing, but the figure has no clothing on  which violates the part of the Thumbnail Rules that say " *no clothes,"

Pasties  equal clothing
Hand does not equal clothing

That is the difference.

"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 is correct. Giolon, your thumb clearly shows that the figure is nude. The thumbnail you're complaining about clearly shows that the figure is wearing clothing.

---

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

Actually, she does have clothing on, and the reason stated for its removal was not lack of clothing.  It was exactly as I have quoted, "A lot more Boob then needed in the thumbnail." (additionally, the reason stated for the 2nd thumbnail was "still too much boob").

I can pull other thumbnails from other of the site's galleries (after the thumbnail rule) that show more, in some cases also "nude" by your definition Acadia, (no clothing showing, only a hand or an image crop to hide the naughty bits).  If you'd like, I can go get them for you and post them here to show how arbitrary the enforcement of the rules has been.

In any case, this is now tangential to the point of my original post.  The rules have been clarified for me.

¤~Giolon~¤

¤~ RadiantCG ~¤~ My Renderosity Gallery ~¤

Quote - Actually, she does have clothing on

But she doesn't have clothing on the top. In the full image there is a 1/2 sarong. She has body paint on her arms but no top.  Her hand is covering the breast.  If she had a pair of pasties on instead of a hand over her breast, the image would not have been pulled.

So far as the "more boob....etc" comment you say was made to you by a moderator, so far as I know they are supposed to use pre approved form letters. Those letters do not say anything like what you say was sent to you.  You can contact a site admin at admin@renderosity.com if you feel that the comment sent to you was rude and unjust. 

"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

Yes, Arcadia you are right.  However, in the 2nd thumbnail, the area of her breast that contains the naughty bits is by far cropped off-screen, which is a tactic used by many in the galleries.  Here are some examples:

(Thumbnail images renamed and rehosted on my website to protect the innocent, but the actual thumbs remains unchanged, except in the case of the 3rd the initials were blacked out).

Is it the mere fact that there are some fingers curling around into view that makes mine objectionable?

I just want to make clear that I'm not asking this b/c I want my thumbnail restored, or that I feel slighted (this was nearly a year ago).  At this point, I'm trying to understand what makes the 2nd of my thumbnails inappropriate.  (We have established that the first is not b/c a hand is not clothing.)

As for the wording, yes there was a form letter.  The quoted bit was appended at the end in red, I assume to make it easier to find.  I can post the letter in its entireity.  I keep all my site mail.

¤~Giolon~¤

¤~ RadiantCG ~¤~ My Renderosity Gallery ~¤

maybe their rules mean that a girl grabbing her boobs or crotch is verboten,
as well as a dude grabbing some girl's boobs/crotch may be verboten.

Quote - Yes, Arcadia you are right.  However, in the 2nd thumbnail, the area of her breast that contains the naughty bits is by far cropped off-screen, which is a tactic used by many in the galleries. 

You are correct. I do not know the reasoning behind the decision to not allow you to use the second thumbnail that you made, or whether it was made arbitrarily or if it was a group vote. However I do agree with you that your second thumbnail was really no different than the other examples that you posted that show a great deal of breast tissue without the nipple or areola showing.

If the thumbnail you get to use is really that important to you, you can write and appeal it with admin@renderosity.com  and ask for a more detailed reason as to why the second one was not allowed.

Also don't post any letters that you get from moderators/admins/co-ordinators. That is against the rules and will get the thread deleted and another letter to you for breaking the TOS about privacy.

"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

Quote - maybe their rules mean that a girl grabbing her boobs or crotch is verboten,
as well as a dude grabbing some girl's boobs/crotch may be verboten.

Covering is not the same as "grabbing"  Sexuality would be nipple manipulation, not simply the hand of the breast owner placed over the breast.

"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

Giolon, the second version should have been acceptable. Drop a line to admin@renderosity.com if you want it reviewed.

---

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

Giolon, when this site became run by republican the merchants raise a stink because it became impossible to display for sale a skin texture without showing the product itself (nude skin).

Plus, paypal wouldn't let them display nudity. The site would be classified as a porn site otherwise. And paypals rules would let them (paypal) to lock up rendos bank account if they continued.

store > gallery

Personally I'd have droped paypal but greed rules. I assume they now get a lot of paypal payments. It probably gave a quick cash bump.
But look at the long term effect on sales, it's not very encourageing.

I see that geoegress raised some good points about the nudity policy,

Plus, paypal wouldn't let them display nudity.
The site would be classified as a porn site otherwise.

Interesting points ...

Some time ago, I was at the local office of my cable internet provider ... to pay a bill ... or exchange some equipment ... that happens a lot -- exchangeing equipment , that is. 

As they have internet access terminals there in the customer area, and I was talking about renderosity to another customer in the queue ... I tried to access the renderosity site ... I was rather surprised to find that it was blocked by some [@#$%] stupid content filter ... as though people paying their cable bill were weak-willed grade school kids.  Humpfffff

Comments ... please ...

--
Martin

Quote - Personally I'd have droped paypal but greed rules. I assume they now get a lot of paypal payments. It probably gave a quick cash bump.
But look at the long term effect on sales, it's not very encourageing.

I no longer have a credit card, so the only way I can pay is via PayPal. If this site or others didn't have PayPal, I wouldn't be able to make any purchases.

Not everyone has, wants, or qualifies for credit cards. PayPal is a nice alternative. Unfortunately I can't see why PayPal really cares what companies use their service for payments.. money is money.

"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

I see that Giolon was showing examples of images to make,

a comparision in the interest that the rules are applied fairly to all.

In that same spirit, I have noticed some marketplace thumbnails that appeaared on the renderosity home page ... just today ...

Sultry Charisma

NGM Petit Size

Both of these seem to differ from the limits set in the image example "showing the required clothed areas for the "new" thumbnail policy" that was posted in this message thread on Feb 17, 2008. 

--
Martin

Both of those thumbnails are fully acceptable.
The nipple and aureolae are fully covered in the first.
The amount of buttock shown in the second doesn't exceed what we'd expect to see if the model was wearing standard knickers/bikini bottom.

---

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

I confess to bafflement as to why a boob with a hand covering most of it is not OK, but a boob with nothing but a tiny little pastie is OK.

If the render is of a pastie-wearing model and she has her hand over it,  the artist must move the hand, so exposing much more of the breast, in order to make it more `decent'.  Similar rules apply to virtual ladies' front bottoms. This is not rational, folks.

As stated previously:
Pasties are considered clothing.
Hands aren't.

---

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

I'm surprised someone popped this thread back up...

Quote - As stated previously:
Pasties are considered clothing.
Hands aren't.

I think Pearce's point is that the pasties, which expose far more than a hand, would have to be visible in order to make a thumbnail acceptable (should it actually be a picture of a figure wearing pasties w/ a hand over the top).  That kind of runs counter to the goals of the thumbnail rule of making the gallery thumbnails "tasteful" and nudity (or near nudity) less "in your face".

It's just an observation...I'm not here to argue against or for the rule.

¤~Giolon~¤

¤~ RadiantCG ~¤~ My Renderosity Gallery ~¤

pearce:

Your mistake in thinking is that they (the PTB) can
logically validate an illogically  position.

Kinda like argueing religion with a preacher. No win even with math, lol

You have to learn to live with inconsistencies around here or you'll be very miserable...  ;)

I showed a promo to an admin a while back before uploading it to the store because I was concerned it showed a little too much skin (it definitely didn't show as much as that though, character was wearing Bikini Babe from Daz and didn't look underage at all), I was told I should alter  it so it wouldn't show so much so it's not just difference between gallery and store...

Lucie
finfond.net
finfond.net (store)

oops! then it appears I was right about no girls grabbing their boobs in thumbs here :lol:

Quote -
As stated previously:
Pasties are considered clothing.
Hands aren't.

Umm...
Hmmm....
tries to think of something to say that doesn't involve needlessly obnoxious sarcasm

agrees that hands aren't clothing, possibly unless you're Hannibal Lecter escaping from prison
wonders why hands aren't clothing, when hands are skin, and leather can be clothing, but passes on considering that thought further

agrees for a second time that hands aren't clothing, just because they're not, unless you consider something like, say, deerskin gloves, which would probably be too much of a stretch

agrees for a third time that hands aren't clothing, with no alternative possibilities offered

Of course, one might wonder what the difference is. Covered is covered, after all. If we want to get technical what "grabbing" is, I submit that "grabbing" would result in a displacement of flesh, which is not evident in Giolon's thumbnails.
So, without the obvious physics which would be evident when something soft is "grabbed", how does one differentiate between that which is grabbed and that which is simply covered?
Or, shall we say it must be clothing  doing the covering?
So, shall I assume then that if those hands had gloves on them, minus the physical effects of "grabbing", they would then be simply "covering"?

Funny thing about this place. There's always a reason for everything, even if it involves reaching well beyond the limits of logic and reason. Very few people will ever publicly admit to simply making a judgement error.

Quote -   I have to admit that I too have wondered why the marketplace tends to allow more leniency than the gallery. 
 

Surely you haven't actually wondered.

Quote - Of course, one might wonder what the difference is. Covered is covered, after all.

An interesting question would be "If the figure is wearing pasties, how much of them must not be covered by the hands for a thumbnail to be allowed ?"

Quote - An interesting question would be "If the figure is wearing pasties, how much of them must not be covered by the hands for a thumbnail to be allowed ?"

Hmmm... Hands grabbing pasties, you say?
Wow, what a conundrum!  In that case I suppose it becomes a philosophical question: Which came first, the pastie or the hand?"

Another interesting question would be, "what if the clothing covering the boobmatter were made of a fabric in the shape of hands?"

Quote - > Quote - Of course, one might wonder what the difference is. Covered is covered, after all.

An interesting question would be "If the figure is wearing pasties, how much of them must not be covered by the hands for a thumbnail to be allowed ?"

You, sir, have won this thread.

¤~Giolon~¤

¤~ RadiantCG ~¤~ My Renderosity Gallery ~¤

Quote -
You, sir, have won this thread.

Yeah, I agree and nruddock is good at that sort of thing.

Thing is though, obvious as any "victory" it may be, it will not likely be substantiated with a concession from the PTB here; indeed, following their obvious defeat in the Court of Logic, it will be likely there will be no further reply. Considering corporations tend to avoid admitting mistakes, lest their customers and/or investors lose faith.

Nevertheless, we know the "correct" answers to these issues. Ironically, so do they, but dissent tends to be viewed by many in  upper management as a failure in "team spirit"...

I hope you saved your scene and your poses. Put some gloves on her and try again, and see if that changes anything.

Quote -
Of course, one might wonder what the difference is. Covered is covered, after all.

Because having no clothes on (e.g. covering boobs with the hand(s) only) is considered nudity, whereas having clothing on (e.g. pasties, microbikini) isn't nudity.

Let me put it this way.
If your thumbnail gives the impression that the model is nude, no amount of ducking and diving with statements like "A-ha! She has a 10mm nipple cover on behind her middle finger!" is going to work.
If, however, your thumbnail shows that the model is wearing clothing (and again, we consider "pasties" to be clothing) then you're fine.

---

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

Quote -
Let me put it this way.

Excellent. And on the behalf of the ignorant masses, I thank you.

Quote -
If your thumbnail gives the impression that the model is nude, no amount of ducking and diving with statements like "A-ha! She has a 10mm nipple cover on behind her middle finger!" is going to work.

Uh-oh! This started off sounding all professional and all, but kind of took a turn downward with the implication the Poserverse seeks to circumvent the rules - "ducking and diving". tsk tsk. Of course, they do, but they learn it's OK from statements as such. Do this, don't do that, and so on, not unlike the rules one's parents make up as they go along. ;-)

Of course, one might analyze the attempt of humor and sarcasm ("like "A-ha! She has a 10mm nipple cover on behind her middle finger!") as being in the same vein as the parent who has run out of good reasoning and has fallen back on the I Told You So thing, for lack of a better way of saying, "in my house we do things my way!"

And....
And....
And....

Hmmm... how about my idea that hands mingling with the mammaries are OK if covered with gloves (clothing)?
That would be legal, right? Or, no?
What if the pasties looked like hands? Better yet, what if the pasties were specifically designed to look like hands?
What if the "pasties" were actually hands?

Quote -
If, however, your thumbnail shows that the model is wearing clothing (and again, we consider "pasties" to be clothing) then you're fine.

Who decides what is "pasties" and what isn't?  Is there a clear definition of the difference existing at the time of this thread, or are you making this up as you go?

Well, maybe you're not exactly making it up. Dictionary.com defines pasties as "a pair of small, cuplike coverings for the nipples of a striptease dancer, nude model, etc."

It doesn't say anything about the make-up of said coverings. Could semi-cupped hands fulfill that requirement? Also note it seems the idea of said pasties being a "covering" is the primary idea.

So, I ask again, when hands cover, but show no signs of groping or grabbing, can they not be considered equivalent in that they fulfill the requirements of the approved "pastie"?

The proximity of the hands relative to the boobage might be an issue, but it would seem to me that in a static image, the intent can only be determined by any apparent reaction seen in the flesh in question, caused by the offending object.
"Intent" can't be determined in a still image without a demonstrative action one way or another.

And that's what really is at question, is it not? Intent?
If not some unwritten moral law, then the hands are serving exactly the same purpose as any other object, such as a "pastie".

Don't try to claim local laws which apply to actual humans ; this is a digital art site, not a strip club.
                                                                             

Mike. Pasties aren't hands.  Hands aren't pasties.
I really don't know how else to say this.

If the thumbnail has clothing (i.e. pasties) so that it can be seen that the model is not nude, then it's fine.

If the model is clearly not wearing clothing, then it's nude and can't be shown on the thumbnail.

Standing around with your hands over your boobs is not going to make you clothed. If you're not wearing clothes, then you're nude.

---

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

Quote -
Standing around with your hands over your boobs is not going to make you clothed. If you're not wearing clothes, then you're nude.

So, pasties are clothing, then?
Would you wear pasties to traffic court?

Actually, I don't care about the definition of clothing or pasties. I'm more interested in how one justifies one form of covering over another, which is what this thread began as.
I can say the image which was rejected did in fact "cover", but can you say the rejected image depicted "grabbing"?

You want  "cover", but prohibit grabbing. The disallowed image had cover, and no grabbing. Somebody was a little too happy on the delete button, is all it is.
And don't tell me they perfectly followed protocol and company policy - people are people, and people screw up from time to time.

As I said on the previous page, Giolon's first image clearly showed that the model was nude. But **his second thumb should have been allowed, because it wasn't clear whether the model was nude or not.
**
Is that what's causing the confusion? Maybe everyone missed me saying that?

---

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

Quote -
So, pasties are clothing, then?
Would you wear pasties to traffic court?

Heheh. No, but then I wouldn't wear a bikini, miniskirt, bra and knickers, or red PVC catsuit to traffic court either - and they're definitely clothing, in anyone's book :laugh:

---

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

so are you saying you intend to go to traffic court in the nood??

i'm confused now!!!

what is traffic court?

and what are pasties??

i used to have pasties at school break time, and a cup of chicken soup!!

so if you are supposed to wear the pastie now, then just what do you do with the chicken soup??

lol vince3

 

pasties are "nipple Shields" ...... i think, :/  personally i would consider them as jewellry rather than clothing (i like cornish pasties but i cant imagine those glued to me boobies though, bit of a hindrance)

 

I think with hands, it gives the impression more than anything that the woman/man is naked, the clothing does not even if it covers that much less skin,  at the end of the day the model is clothed.

 

if the image is so nude that you cant find a spot to use as a thumb then there is always the default "adult content" thumb to use in the gallery  (wasnt the thumbnail rule bought into place in the gallery due to offensiveness, I must admit that the "Adult Content" thumb is far more offensive as it sticks out like  a sore thumb...nail saying, "look at me I contain boobies and bumbums"

Now i want some chicken soup, lol

Tools:- Win10, Dell XPS8900, ZBrush, Marvelous Designer 11, Hex 2, PSP8. PSP 2019 Ultimate, DAZ Studio, Affinity Photo, Affinity Designer, Filterforge 11, flowscape,  Classic UVMapper, and several headache tablets. 

I've got a horrible mental image now of jamming a couple of cornish pasties onto my boobs...

I'm trying to decide if it would be worse if they were hot or cold...

:m_tongue:

---

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

well ya wouldnt go hungrey, think it might be a good idea, sitting her waiting for poser to render, "oh i feel rather peckish" .... leave the rest to imagination, lol

....... would get crumbs in the keyboard though, :)

Tools:- Win10, Dell XPS8900, ZBrush, Marvelous Designer 11, Hex 2, PSP8. PSP 2019 Ultimate, DAZ Studio, Affinity Photo, Affinity Designer, Filterforge 11, flowscape,  Classic UVMapper, and several headache tablets. 

Quote - I've got a horrible mental image now of jamming a couple of cornish pasties onto my boobs...

I'm trying to decide if it would be worse if they were hot or cold...

I'd recommend slighty warm with a good helping of baked beans :woot:

Don't forget to upload the video to YouTube :thumbupboth:

Quote - I'm trying to decide if it would be worse if they were hot or cold...

 

what the pasties or the boobies??

Quote - well ya wouldnt go hungrey

have you seen the size of 'em??

there are small nations that wouldn't go hungry for quite some time!!!

( i haven't actually seen the size of  'em (sighs) but that gag needed to have happened!!)

Quote -
As I said on the previous page, Giolon's first image clearly showed that the model was nude. But **his second thumb should have been allowed, because it wasn't clear whether the model was nude or not.
**
Is that what's causing the confusion? Maybe everyone missed me saying that?

Actually, I did miss that. Oops. 

Mike, you are in trouble now!!!! Go stand in the corner, I'll let you know when you can come out:)

heehee

Can I come out now? I really need to get ready for work. ;-)

Whoops,, sorry I forgot about leaving you in the corner...Yes you can come out now:) heehee

you left 'im in the corner for 2 minutes short of 24hrs there stacey!!

you are getting stricter you know.

(best not to mention that i spilt some coffee in the photoshop forum)

Shame about the pratfall Mike, but you gave up too soon, I think.  I'm a little late keeping this particular pot boiling, but never mind; it's been an amusing read :)

On the one hand we had;
"If your thumbnail gives the impression that the model is nude, no amount of ducking and diving . . . is going to work."

..and on the other;
"..his second thumb should have been allowed, because it wasn't clear whether the model was nude or not."

So, implying that a model is nude is taboo, but implying that the model just might be nude is OK.

So if the business-end of a boob is just out-of-frame, it's OK because she might have a pastie on.

Whereas if her hand is concealing a pastie but the boob/hand eclipse is not out-of-frame, that falls under Implication of Definite Nudity (not-OK), rather than Implication of Possible Nudity (OK)?

I think I'll go and lie down now...

Hmmm... you know, I think you're on to something there, pearce.
I think I got caught up merely in arguing and hadn't really noticed that.
Sloppy... very sloppy. I am hanging my head in shame.
There's not much more to add beyond that though, so I guess the next move is Theirs...

Maybe after this rattles around in my head a little longer I'll have something better to add, but I do believe you  have found what I was squinting at but not seeing clearly.

Pearce, you're a true inspiration, man. (he said with his voice cracking) sniff 

Heh.  I don't even do that nudie stuff.  It's just one of those interesting wrangles.  Though I doubt that even Wittgenstein could figure this one out (with or without the bolts in his neck) :laugh:

So, implying that a model is nude is taboo, but implying that the model just might be nude is OK.

Yep.

If the model appears to be nude, then it's not okay.
If it's a possibility that the model is nude, but a definite determination is not possible, then it's okay.

I'm not really sure what's confusing about that?

Otherwise, a head-and-shoulder shot of a model that didn't show bra straps/jumper/shirt or whatever would not be okay, and that would just be silly. (Or ditto a foot, hand, etc...)

---

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

**" If it's a possibility that the model is nude, but a definite determination is not possible, then it's okay.

I'm not really sure what's confusing about that?"**

What's confusing us is why a hand concealing a breast isn't in the latter category, i.e. possible but indeterminate and therefore OK, given that pasties are clothing; that's all really

And I'm certainly not implying that Rendo's rules could ever be silly..:lol:

Because with a hand covering the breast, the model appears to be nude.

Let me try and put it another way.
If you show an image of a model covering her boob with her hand to 100 random people and ask them "Do you think this model is wearing clothes?", what do you think they will answer? (apart from "Who cares!" or "Can I have a copy please?!" and other things of that nature, heheh.)

They will say "Sure she's naked, I don't see any clothes..." or maybe "Is this a trick question?" But my point is, a vast majority of people will look at a photo/image where a model is holding/covering her boobs with her hands and say "That's nude."

Now some people may not like nipple pasties, they may think that they're crude or insufficient, and I'm surely not going to argue that you wouldn't wear them to work - but then you wouldn't wear your underwear (only!) to work either, would you, or a bikini (unless you're a lifeguard!) But I don't think anyone would argue that a bikini or a bra is not clothing. As long as the pasties fully cover the nipple and aureolae, Renderosity is happy to accept them as clothing and happy with their use in thumbnails.

[Edited for clarity]

---

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

Hmm, now I am confused , All this talk of pasties has made me hungry and its lunch time , so I am gonna have lunch. I might even have a pastie , but I will look in the fridge , not on a boob.

This has been an irrelevant musing on the somewhat confusing English language .

Allrighty then!! ...my go!!

(ahem)........what if the figure is clothed and wearing an apron.

BUT!!

the apron is one of those "oh stop i'm laughing too much" comedy aprons, with a naked babe torso picture on it, so when you wear it, you look all noodie like? ...and with a fine looking pair of firm......er!...........anyway!!

now,
 
....as she is ( forgot to mention she was a she didn't I, and it would of been much quicker to just edit the earlier bit than write all this too!!...but on we go!...where was I?..oh yeah!!) wearing an apron, she may well be doing a spot of cooking, what's she cooking?...........that's right, you guessed it...........kippers!! ...only joking......of course pasties, good ol' "whoever invented them" pasties.

so,

we have our scene, but in our scene our character is still in the motions of making said pasties, and as such is constantly reaching around for pastie making utensils, during one of these reaching around moments, we hit "render" and a picture is born............

the resulting image is of a fully dressed woman, wearing a comedy noodie apron, her hand (now with recently reached spoon in it) is covering the image on the apron, right across the firm looking bits..........there are half made pasties all around!!

can we upload that picture to Rendo?

( Hey!! and don't give me any rubbish about your poor aching eyeballs!!, what about my poor aching fingers eh?, i just had to type all that crap up there!!)

 

How about this thumbnail in the galleries right now (and has been for over a week)?  The genital nudity is completely on screen, only obscured by a leg, and there's no indication of wearing clothing.

¤~Giolon~¤

¤~ RadiantCG ~¤~ My Renderosity Gallery ~¤

Quote -

How about this thumbnail in the galleries right now (and has been for over a week)?  The genital nudity is completely on screen, only obscured by a leg, and there's no indication of wearing clothing.

IMHO that one should have been pulled because there is no bikini bottom/pantie string showing at the hip to indicate clothing.

I know from experience that the Poser Gallery is time consuming to wade through and that each Mod takes their turn going through it. It might just be that they haven't been able to get through the whole gallery uploads for that day, and it might even be that someone edited their thumbnail after the fact too, meaning that the moderator saw another thumbnail when they went through the gallery. Edited images do not get bumped back to the new uploads.

There is a button below each gallery image that you can use to report offensive images or images in violation of the rules. 

"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

Although that IS obviously a violation of the rules, in the same way the previous subject was or wasn't, depending on how you want to spin it.....
I suddenly find myself wondering... what does it even matter?

I mean, seriously - pasties, panties, grabbing, hands/no hands and all that. Covered is covered, period. I said that before and I'll say it again.

In the other example it was a hand covering. A hand that was clearly not "grabbing".
In this case it's a leg doing the covering.

There's an old saying which seems like it might apply here, in the form of an acronym - KISS : Keep it Simple, Stupid.
For those who never heard that, it essentially means undue complexity can cause problems.
We all know what the anatomical naughty parts are as far as this site is concerned. Making rules such as pasties are OK, obviously nude is bad, but possibly NOT nude is OK, hands can not cover....
It's silly and it's overly complex. As you can see, from time to time it causes problems.
Why not just say the naughty bits need to be covered by something that itself isn't another naughty bit?

Simple. But, I'm sure, unacceptable for some very very unquestionably good reason. probably because almost every rule ever made here has been unnecessarily complex.

The other simple alternative would be to just go all Stalin on the membership and declare no nudity in thumbnails, period, and ruthlessly delete them along with the image, and even make the offender take a few days off.
This is what I would do, to avoid this sort of thing entirely.
Sure, they'd whine and cry at first, but they'd get over it.
Besides, all this suggestive content in the thumbnails is only a ploy to get hits on the images, and then sit bake and rake in the gushing praise, which in and of itself is kinda silly too.

Quote - I mean, seriously - pasties, panties, grabbing, hands/no hands and all that. Covered is covered, period. I said that before and I'll say it again.

I won't disagree with you there :)

To me nudity is seeing the bare buttocks, genitals, pubic region or female breasts...in all their glory sans clothing.

If you can't see any of those things because a body part or prop covers it, then to me that isn't "nude".

"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

If you see a thumbnail or image in the gallery that might be a violation, please use the report function instead of bringing it in the forums. That isn't the appropriate way to bring something to the staffs attention.

We do miss things from time to time but all you have to do is hit the "report" under the full image and let us know, we'll be glad to review it with the team.

Quote - the resulting image is of a fully dressed woman, wearing a comedy noodie apron, her hand (now with recently reached spoon in it) is covering the image on the apron, right across the firm looking bits..........there are half made pasties all around!!

can we upload that picture to Rendo?

Sure you can upload that image to the Rendo gallery...but you can't show the hands covering the nudie bits of the joke apron in the thumbnail..

~Jani

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

Quote - > Quote - I mean, seriously - pasties, panties, grabbing, hands/no hands and all that. Covered is covered, period. I said that before and I'll say it again.

I won't disagree with you there :)

To me nudity is seeing the bare buttocks, genitals, pubic region or female breasts...in all their glory sans clothing.

If you can't see any of those things because a body part or prop covers it, then to me that isn't "nude".

Oh I agree.  But they can't do that because that would be too logical.

As for the latest thumbnail example, I won't report it b/c it doesn't bother me.  I saw what looks like a contradiction to what I understand the policy to be.  I'm not looking to punish people who may have slipped through the cracks  (hence the reason for me re-hosting and renaming the thumbnails).  If I see something in the gallery (especially after a week) I figure it's something that was deemed OK, and that I may be misunderstanding the restriction.

¤~Giolon~¤

¤~ RadiantCG ~¤~ My Renderosity Gallery ~¤

Quote -
Sure you can upload that image to the Rendo gallery...but you can't show the hands covering the nudie bits of the joke apron in the thumbnail..

See, that's what I mean by "going all Stalin..."  Unrepentant, inflexible adherence to the rules. Even had a little winky to indicate This Is How It Is.
Although, any good dictator will probably tell you the simpler the rules are, the easier they are to ruthlessly enforce without risking the natives revolting...

I bet it's a real PITA to run a website such as this, especially the Poser aspect of it, isn't it? ;-)

Honestly, though, this has become a rather fun argument as far as I'm concerned. Part of my real life job requires that I argue with people all throughout the day who are trying to put something over on me. Of course, that's always more clear-cut, less theoretical, and I always win, since I'm the boss. ;-)

So, although this is just amusement to me, I still have to say, I'd love to see a transcript of the discussion which led up to the decision of the whole pastie idea. ;-)

Quote -
If I see something in the gallery (especially after a week) I figure it's something that was deemed OK, and that I may be misunderstanding the restriction.

Yeah, well that's why we ask you to report it. It obviously bothered you enough to save it to your own server and embed it into this thread, but you're not going to tell us where to find it so we can fix it - and with 50 pages between today and last week, it's not something that any of our staff have time to do.

This does not help us with consistency, which naturally is a primary concern for many people. I'm sure you can understand our frustration.

---

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

Is this OK?

It's so okay that my cats are pointing at the screen, and then to my credit card, hahahaha :lol:

---

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

Quote - Is this OK?

Hell yeah!

I think it's brilliant how you took the idea of Upload-Kitty-Picture and seamlessly integrated it with the subject at hand. Normally in 3D threads, the kitty pics come as an annoying non sequitor.

Pearce, sir, I am impressed.

Now I find myself wishing I had a great 3D model of a house cat with high res textures...

As they have a say here, at the faculty's secretary's door:

**'you shut up! or I'll bring democracy to your country!'  **   ;)

That's for Adm who deleted my post here at forum....

"'you shut up!  or I'll bring democracy to your country! "
Cris Galvão aka Softcris  - www.crisgalvao.com
(or softcris, SoftCris)
Rendering since 1997 and
at Renderosity since 1999.
OS Win 8.1     64 bit

I know for certain it's not against the rules but does this really have to be on the front page with no control over whether it comes up or not?

One look at my gallery and my favorite artists will tell any of you that I've got absolutely no problems with giant in your face boobs (I even purchased the above advertised outfit!)...however, I (and I'm sure others) like to hit up the site at work to get to places like the forums, check my sitemail, or other view news posts.  The gallery is easy to avoid, and there's even controls to filter (somewhat) what pops up into view, and the forums have content warnings for threads that make them easy to circumnavigate.  But come on, let's be classy here...does there really have to be a gigantic pastied boob on the front page?  And being that it's in the advertisements, there's nothing that can be done about it popping up at inopportune times.  In fact I'm perfectly happy to see the giant boob...when I'm at home!

I've noticed that the marketplace advertisements have been allowed to get racier and racier as time has gone on since the implementation of the no-nudity policy in marketplace thumbs nearly, what, 2 years ago now?  Am I just going to have to cut Renderosity out of my daytime browsing or can we get some options here as to what type of marketplace advertisements we want to be subjected to and when?  Am I crazy to pine for something like this?

¤~Giolon~¤

¤~ RadiantCG ~¤~ My Renderosity Gallery ~¤

I'm not crazy about that being on the Front Page either, that is just my personal opinion though. :(  I will have another discussion with the admin team just to see about things like the Front Page and what comes up from time to time.

Thanks

I see that Giolon has raised an important question,

does this really have to be on the front page with no control over whether it comes up or not?

... and went on with a lucid discussion of the issue. 

I want to bring your attention to another issue that this image engenders ...

You see, whenever I see this sort of costume, or accessory, ... I always think ... 

     What holds it up?   OR   What keeps it in place? 

Before we get all excited about my question, I want to establish why this comes to mind ... my mind, that is. 

[1] I am a member of the SCA ... and members of the SCA are always interested in historical fashion ... garb ... especially good garb ... sometimes Renaissance Faire garb ... and that leads to discussions about bad garb ... bad Ren Faire garb ... and even Just Plain Bad garb.

[2] I also like Renaissance Faires ... often, at a Ren Faire, you will meet Elves or other shy, gentle, creatures with no historical documentation (that means that they can't be seen at SCA events).  The really good elves -- the Tolkiensque elves -- will have the characteristic pointed ears or long pointed ears as a permanent feature -- all day long, that is.  Well, the real elves are born that way ... so, there.  The other elves you might see at a Ren Faire must use Kryolan Extra Strength Medical Adhesive. 

Now that you know both [1] and [2], above you'll understand that when I see an image like the one Giolon brought to our attention, I try to imagine a barbarian princess using Medical Adhesive to ... "get dressed" each morning ... and I just can't get myself to make the concept stick in my mind. 

Well, there you are ... that's my 2 cents for the day ...

--
Martin

p.s. Similar reasoning applies to costumes (poser clothing) that conform to every curve (both positive and negative) of the model's body ... but with no apparent reason, no concession to gravity ,,, or fashion sense.