Unlike some recent high profile departures from the vue gallery and forum(including a coordinator), I just took part less and less without an official declaration I’m leaving.
I havnt posted partly because I havnt been creating any CG images, but mainly because I am so disillusioned and discouraged by the attitude of Rendo's officials in their application of rules and in their interaction with it’s members.  I figured it’s time I post a thread expressing my concerns. As nothing about them is of a personal nature, they may be of interest to the community in general.

1. Nudity rules. I know much has been said about it  already. Perhaps the frequency the issue keeps coming up again and again should give the official a clue they havnt reached a satisfactory resolution?
    

So, is nudity automatically imply the image isi ‘dirty’  or obscene? I refute this vehemently. For sure some images with 'clothed' are more pornographic then the nude ones.
It isnt how much clothing there is but how respectful it is to the characters and what they represent. Unfortunately this might  be an impossible criterion to  enforce. So It is more practical to try implement a ‘mechanical’ definition.
I understood that rendo's  practical definition was ‘no visible nipples or genitals’. It doesnt seem to work. Just some examples to demonstrate my point:
I had an image where none of  these areas were visible as they were behind other body parts.
http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1991601
I was asked to flag it for nudity. I’m not confirming or denying she was nude, but from what the moderator can see, there is no infringement  of the rule. She might be wearing ‘stick on’  clothing items on the body parts in question. There is no evidence otherwise, so doesnt 'presumed innocent' apply? And why does it matter if the relevant body parts are obscured by a piece of cloth or another object or  another body part?

It isnt consistent with the rule and its practical application. The rule is being bent by the moderator perhaps to fit his personal view of what’s morally correct.

On the other hand I posted the image
http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=2030012
Both characters appear to be nude. I wasnt asked for a flag or special thumbnail. Is it because it is in a traditional painting rather than CG? would it be disallowed if it was more realistic (in terms of her nipples area)? would it be allowed if it was in the cubist genre of paintings and her nipples were squares? Where is the limit?

Similar problems have arisen recently about nudity and alien creatures. Where is the limit between a human and an animal? What are sexual organs of an imaginary creature?

it is  impossible to apply the rule consistently in any of these cases. The rules would have to be bent by the specific moderators. Their decision may make sense to themselves but it is objectively arbitrary.

However, this problem of interpretation, although  important, is just the tip of the iceberg. I (as many before me) am questioning the justification of having the rule at all.
I dont see why the puritanical nature of some members should infringe on the freedom of all others. I dont see why some people have the right to determine what is moral in this respect and enforce their opinion on me.
I often see moderators comment “ Please dont think we imply your image is offensive, it’s   just a rule, you understand’ - They are not being honest. They  ARE declaring it offensive/immoral.  Are they saying if they are asked  to censor anything with red in it just because some dont like it aesthetically  they  would? I doubt it. Rendo applies censorship because some people see it as immoral, at least be honest about it. Well, I object to my images being branded immoral. I try to depict the beauty of human beings and express respect and appreciation.  If some people dont want to see nature/god’s creation  in all its glory it should be their problem, not mine.
I do have a solution which would put the onerous of action on them.  Let me flag my gallery  as a whole as ‘not for the puritans’ . Let them flag themselves as ‘puritan’.  All images  or at least all thumbnails of images by artists defining their gallery as not for puritans will be blocked/masked for all puritan members. People who see nudity automatically as obscene are not welcome in my gallery as a whole I shouldnt need to  flag specific images.
(By the way having images blocked from overly sensitive people is not a new idea it exists, for example on redbubble.com, so it is perfectly feasible to implement).

To be frank, based on previous experience  the answer I expect for this suggestion- the principle and the practical- is ‘ This is not the way WE do it. We chose to do it our way. It is our site and we can do as we like.”
Not only is this an arbitrary and dictatorial attitude, it isnt completely true either.
For example even in private clubs racial discrimination isnt allowed. So not everything is OK to do just because someone owns a site. It has to be just and has to be seen to be just.

2.Promoting commercial products in Rendo forums.
This issue by itself doesnt bother me as much on a personal level as the nudity issue. It's nature is more of a nuisance. But the official responses I got about my concerns are of importance, and are yet another example of their 'flexi-rules' and inconsistent approach.
According to Rendo's rule posting an advertisement to promote a commercial product is not allowed (unless it's a marketplace product, and then it is only allowed in the marketplace forum). I pointed out to the officials  several times about specific advertisement threads. I also suggested a clarifying stickie for the vue forum (as there is for the Poser forum). Some advertisements have been removed but no stickie in spite of several requests. I find this puzzling as it seems like another rule which cannot be applied rigorously or consistently.
My criteria would be that if a thread contains helpful information to members who do not buy the product it is OK to post it. For example -eonite's cloud thread is a clear advertisement for his c3d products. However this thread included many demos and freebees and was overall illuminating even to those who did not buy the product. There is a place for such a thread.
Chipp Walters posted a thread about his new book. Clear advertisement. No bonus to anyone but those that buy the book. Let me be as clear as I can -I am NOT claiming his product isnt good. I have reason to believe many will find the book very helpful particularly with its unique presentation. It is still just an advertisement. It is still an infringement of the rule. It took the moderators 2 weeks(!) to come back to me. I wish I could quote precisely, as it is hard to believe otherwise(quoting an official rply is apparently against TOS, another unjustifiable rule).The content of the reply is that Chippwalters did indeed infringe the rules on the posting of commercial items in the Forum, his product is seen as something of a boon to Vue-ers in that it can be seen as an instruction manual.
So it stays because the officials think it's a useful book? How does usefulness or quality come into it? If it isnt of use to users without buying the book, it is a plain advertisement. Current rule says it isnt allowed.
The rule is generally unenforceable. Not only can a vendor ask a buddy to post the thread for him (not considered an advert). Not only can the buddy just post a question 'does anyone know of a new book about vue and the vendor will reply (not an advert). Not only can the vendor preface his advert with 'I'm not advertising my product as this isnt allowed but you can guess I may have one'. (currently in a vue  thread). But it could just be overruled by the moderator because he likes the product for one reason or another.

They should make up their mind – enforce the rule as it is, or cancel it. Arbitrary application is disrespectful to those who obey the rule (and those who have been made to remove their thread) and to the general public who doesnt get the benefits of the rule nor of  its removal.

3.Suggestion from members:
It seemed like a good idea having rendo listen to member's suggestion. It would imply  Rendo cares about its members. Not in my experience. It is just a facade for them letting members talk but doing what they want.
Some examples – a few years ago I suggested that it should be possible to assign more than one gallery or genre to an image. I was told this is impossible computationally. Which is of course ridiculous – not only is there nothing to suggest it cant be done in principle, but most similar sites  already do it (dA, zazzle, rebubble). Recently, someone else brought up the same idea in the suggestion box. This time the reaction was 'good idea, we'll add this to our list'. An idea that was rejected off hand is suddenly a good idea... As it still isnt implemented, I figure both replies are just a way to shut up the members. Nobody takes any notice of anything raised in th esuggestion box or otherwise. They just go on with their own agenda. Rutra tried to offer the idea of a system keeping track  what happens to member's suggestion
http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2804031.
This was dismissed off hand as 'too hard'. I asked for examples of member suggestions that have been taken on board and implemented. They would not or could not provide those. Yet they keep saying they 'add things to the list'. If there is a list, couldnt they make it public and provide updates?
Indicates to me that the 'suggestion box' is just lip service. No one is listening but they dont have the intrinsic honesty to admit it.

Well, I had some other examples of why rendo's policies and arbitrary reactions discourage and depress me, but this is getting too long anyhow. If I havnt made my point by now, I probably never will.
I predict the powers that be will still invoke their primary directive “we do what we want when we want it. You dont like it you can leave” , so this may well be my swan song for rendo.  Shame, seemed like a nice place with nice people (members primarily).

Prove me wrong Rendo officials, address thses issues with honest intent to solve the problem, not by looking for the quickest way to shut up me and other disappointed mebers.

"I paint that which comes from the imagination or from dreams, or from an unconscious drive. I photograph the things that I do not wish to paint, the things which already have an existence."
Man Ray, modernist painter
http://artpearl.redbubble.com/