Oddly and yet almost ironic I violated the TOS for nudity with my latest image http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1627450

Now the irony comes in because I was one the people here that actually advocated for a TOS reguarding child nudity/Violence LOL.

I am curious to see how some of you feel about censorship though as this is the very first time I have ever been censored.

That said I am a little suprised at how enforced it is and how stringent it is . What I depicted was in no way suggestive or in my opinion offensive. I did however edit my image and gave him a cute pair of glowing diapies...

I also want to state I really have no problem editing the image ( I do feel it looked better the other way IMHO) but I also don't feel the need to offend people at this site or I would not have been here for the last 9 years. I do like to stir up a little trouble now and then to keep people thinking hehe

So ICM if you happen to read this no worries and no hard feeling I know your just doing your job thanks for the heads up warning and as long as you are not Goose stepping we are still good. LOL

I'm going to take the trouble to reply to this because I'm saddened that people misinterpret the TOS as censorship, in that some members believe that Renderosity wants to prevent you seeing what you have every right to see.

This is simply not the case.

Members must understand some things;

1. People of all ages view this site and the art it contains. If you are a parent it is quite possible that you wouldn't want your children to view some of this site's content. I know I wouldn't. By making rules about adding nudity and violence tags to your work we help people decide for themselves if a particular image is in the first place possibly offensive to themselves, and in the second place, allow people to make judgements about what their young ones can see before they see it in the main images.

2. As many of you will be aware, we live in an age where political correctness has gone mad and where people can be overly offended by the least little thing. My personal view is that if you don't like it you don't have to look at it - you can go elsewhere. But he who pays the piper calls the tune. Renderosity allows us to live here for free. Yet that in itself comes at a price. The last thing the Rend needs is to branded as a place to view 'unsavoury' images, and for that reason rules have been carefully established to maintain that image. If advertisers that support Renderosity suddenly find themselves associated with somekind of porn site they will pull the plug faster than you can render a prim in 3DMAX. With no income the Rend goes to the wall. You do the math.

3. Sadly, and this may come as a bit of a shock to some of you, there are people out there who find imagary we might describe as innoccuous, appealing in a sexual manner. The worst images are of course removed asap, including images that are obviously pornographic or offensive in the worst way. But even images such as that posted by Vile recently can be of interest over and above the innocent by persons with particular proclivities.

Yet if the staff here were to take the expression 'censorship' to its fullest extent there would be very little content on these pages. I believe that 99% of what could be removed if true censorship existed here remains on view for all to see. The price for that of course is that a few simple-to-follow rules have been posted. Rules like: 'No nekkid titties on thumbnails', 'No bloody weapons in thumbnails'. What you put in your images and call art is mainly your business and for the most part we leave it at that.

4. Finally, I have to say that what is most annoying is that some people will insist on pushing the envelope when they should quite simply know better. This creates a huge workload for staff who in the first place are volunteers and therefore unpaid, and in the second, have better things to do like writing tuts and solving member's problems like "Why did Bryce eat my image?"

If you want porn, try another site. If you don't want your image to be pulled on a TOS violation, check your thumb with a magnifying glass BEFORE you post it. If in doubt, ask the Staff. That's what we're here for.

Now I apologise to Vile for hijacking his thread, but I hope that he along with the rest of this forum understand why things are done the way they are.

Thank you for reading this. 

The Bryster
Bryce Forum Coordinator
(And not a goose-step in sight!)

Quote - That said I am a little suprised at how enforced it is and how stringent it is . What I depicted was in no way suggestive or in my opinion offensive.

The part of the TOS you fell foul of isn't in terms of "suggestion" or "offence", but "this is what must be covered up" and "what your not allowed to do to work around the what must be covered up rules".

Occasionally someone who gets an image pulled starts a rant thread about them being accused of something unsavoury when all they've done is not comply with the rules.

The enforcement of the TOS is just a strict with regards to the "no nudity in thumbnails" and because there are differences in interpretation of what's allowed and what's not (see this thread for an example -> http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2730978) sometimes the acceptability changes after review.

The irony about you being an prime mover for a TOS on child nudity is only that you got what the admins came up with, which doesn't allow everything you think it should (an approximately analogous situation is when people get the local council to put parking restrictions on the section of road in front of their house and then feel aggrieved when they get a ticket).

Now you will look back at my original 2 posts and see that I did not have a problem editing my image but the pose was impossible to change without showing the side of babys bottom. So my solution put a diaper on a child inside an artifical womb.

It was not showing any genitalia.  and was picture absolutely from the side.

I also said I was not angry at this. But lets take a little more time on this subject

I guess a reproductions of the World renouned Master Leonardo Davinci would be out of the question? At least here in Renderosity. Yeah I can really see how portraying the Christ can be concedered porn these days...

How about William-Adolphe Bouguereau heck I saw so many of these on Valentines cards its almost amazing![

](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Bouguereau_first_kiss.jpg)

Paolo Uccello?

As for the all ages I believe most of us who had any art in School in Grade school know of Leonardo.  I would also like to remind you all of these paintings are in Major Art museums where kids will be taking field trips to at some point. Funnier still is these are all done pre 20th let alone 21st century. There is a HUGE difference between depicting the human body and pornography. And Yes the is subjective censorship.

Yeah we have come a long way BABY LOL....

This is not a Rant just an observation.

Now if you all don't mind I think I missed this weeks post of Big Breasts Weekly in our Gallery here at Renderosity... I mean come on if wanted to rant that would be one place to start on how "Clean up" this site.

One last thing before my thread gets locked LOL

As a parent I am more worried about showing the rest of renderosities galleries for the reason I just mentioned and have a nudity and violence filter on.

I also agree with 99.99% of the TOS and child guidlines and did change my image, but I did want to mention as I did above about reproducing one of the master artists creations. And that I did not purposfully create a pose that would be either provocitive or suggestive any more so and actually much less then examples I have given.

Finally I do also hope that I did not offend anyone with this post or with the image I created neither were my intention.