https://www.posetteforever.com/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=1340
-----------------------------------
Visitor
Tuesday, 22 March 2005, 07:53 PM

Are they crazy? aka &quot;it's not Porn, the sequel
-----------------------------------
Well as most of you already know, a certain large website has altered their TOS.  That is thier right, no problems there.  But it is the reason for the change and the results of it that seems crazy.  The new TOS clamps down on the ways that youthful characters can be depicted in pictures posted there.  I understand what they are trying to stop, but the way that they are doing it seems to be over kill.  Besides, I have not seen any cases of what they are trying to stop, having been posted in their gallery in the first place.

Their new TOS would prevent the purely innocent scenes such as two boys wearing swimming trunks having fun in the waters of a local pond.  Also, two of what it think of as DV's best series to date are also now unacceptable by their TOS.

Since the announcement I have seen pictures posted in other galleries by refugees from the change in the TOS.  These were of images that from what I understand were once posted there and now the artists who created them were required to remove them. 

My Mom also saw the refugee pictures and she was quite disturbed.  Yes, she was disturbed, not by the pictures but rather by how those sweet and lovely images are being treated.  As she says, their mind are in the gutter and the only reason those pictures are seen as filth is because those who made those rules have filthy minds so they can only see filth.  Even much of church art is now in violation of their TOS!  The famous images of "Madona and child" are now considerd pornographic at that site.  As my Mom says, they had better never visit Rome, all the beautiful statues there would give them a breakdown.  They would want to condem about three quartes of the public art in that city.

The new TOS does not affect any of my works to date.  However, I do have a couple of  series that I am thinking of working on, that if I had already completed and posted there, I would now have to remove from their gallery.  One of the series that I have planned to create is an illustrated story, only a few of the parts of that series that would also be effected by the new TOS.

Now I am in a quandry about how to proced with these two series of pictures.

While, I was thinking of including grime dirt and other such tinting and stains in the textures, none of the images would have any "filthy" content.  I would like to show those pictures in multiple gallerys as I do now, but I don't like the idea of altering the contents of the images to have them fit in with the letter of the wording of the TOS.

One option would be to alter the contents of the images and as a result the story line also, to be acceptable to all sites.  I don't like this beacuse it would remove the reflection of reality that I seek for those pictures.  Another option is not ideal, but is the way that I am now leaning twords.  Create both series as I had intended, post all the pictures of the series in each of the galleries, but omit posting certain individual images on that site that would violate their TOS leaving gaps in the storyline meanwhile adding to the descriptions, saying that to view the entire series visit PF.

Pangor


-----------------------------------
TdaC
Tuesday, 22 March 2005, 08:52 PM


-----------------------------------
Well their new TOS has effected me. I had to delete this image below because the baby is only wearing a diaper and nothing on the upper body. IMHO you have to be sick to see something pornographic in this image. [-( 

Btw i have poser 4, with this version the only clothing that comes with the program that fits the p4baby is the diaper.


-----------------------------------
tda42
Tuesday, 22 March 2005, 09:52 PM


-----------------------------------
Oh for crying out loud, You have got to be kidding. #-o They banned that picture for something like a baby with a diaper? Well there goes the neighborhood. Even innocence is porn. That is sad.


-----------------------------------
TdaC
Tuesday, 22 March 2005, 09:58 PM


-----------------------------------
They are changing the TOS, MALE babies in diapers are ok now. :whistle:


-----------------------------------
Visitor
Tuesday, 22 March 2005, 10:00 PM


-----------------------------------
I seen it before and thought of it as a really sweet image.  I had not tough about that, but you are right the poor infant is in violation of their TOS.  Sheesh!!

Just like over at PP is had to flag my "After the Evening" for Nudity because of those two tiny angel statues over the fireplace were nude with their nipples exposed.  What was the first comment I recieved on that image on that site?  "Where is the nudity?"  When I asked for guidance in intrepreting the guidlines in realtion that that picture, I was told to becareful.  I was also told that asking the question, I had already proven the need for the warning flag to be set.

I can only imagine how hard this will effect those who specialize in fairy art.  Like my mom says, they (the censors) are crazy.

In talking about this at home, I have come up with a saying:
  Just like beauty is in the eye of the beholder, filty is in the mind of the berater.

Pangor


-----------------------------------
Tormie
Wednesday, 23 March 2005, 12:56 AM


-----------------------------------
It's a difficult thing this one. Children's pictures can easily become controversial and those rules has been clearly written to make the moderators' work easier and keep the site away of legal actions, I don't know of what site are you talking about, I think that there's nothing wrong to clearly talk about it. In any case the second possibility would be some kind of religious motivations...

Talking about Posetteforever, we can't share pictures of nude children but obviously the most important think is that tthe picture should not be considered malicious, if it looks in this way it must be erased, even if the author haven't made it on purpouse. I remember to have "censored" only two pictures here, every time I talked with the author explaining why.


-----------------------------------
ahjah
Wednesday, 23 March 2005, 01:45 AM


-----------------------------------
](*,)  ](*,)  ](*,) ...paranoid

If they´ll start TOSsing nude faces, I´ll be having a real problem


-----------------------------------
Poserkatz
Wednesday, 23 March 2005, 05:25 AM


-----------------------------------
Hypochondrial rules of a hypochondrial society!
Nothing more i have to say about  #-o  ](*,)


-----------------------------------
TdaC
Wednesday, 23 March 2005, 06:41 AM


-----------------------------------
Davide, it's renderosity that has changed their TOS. I can understand and do fully soport  rules that keep kids from being abused. Some of the changes in their TOS i also agree with. I thought and think that it was /is stupid to think of babies in diapers as pornographic. But i think that they realized that, because they changed the TOS so that babies in diapers are allowed now.  :dancing:


-----------------------------------
Visitor
Wednesday, 23 March 2005, 10:04 AM


-----------------------------------
[quote="TdaC";p="19700"]...But i think that they realized that, because they changed the TOS so that babies in diapers are allowed now.[/quote]

I hope so, but I am not sure about that.  If you read the free standing guidelines, it has been altered as you say.  If you read the TOS, it has not been updated, and the guidlines included in the TOS also have not been updated.  Besides from what I understand, the guidelines, freestanding on included within the TOS are non-binding commentary, only the wording of the actual TOS are binding.  If the guideline conflict with the TOS, the TOS take precedence.

Pangor


-----------------------------------
Tormie
Wednesday, 23 March 2005, 10:27 AM


-----------------------------------
:-k  :-k  :-k Tormie goes rosity to lurk... "Hey! it's raining out here!"


-----------------------------------
Visitor
Wednesday, 23 March 2005, 04:39 PM


-----------------------------------
Ok. This is REALLY rediculous!!!  ](*,)  ](*,)  ](*,) What  can I say. There're worse even than my mother.  ](*,)  ](*,)  ](*,) Are we living in the Middle Ages or this moderators are TOO religious or  :crazy:  : :evil: ?   :protest:


-----------------------------------
Posy
Wednesday, 23 March 2005, 04:39 PM


-----------------------------------
You don't say.


-----------------------------------
Deviant_Viking
Wednesday, 23 March 2005, 05:08 PM


-----------------------------------
Another kneejerk reaction from 'Rosity, where they take the easy way out.
"We don't feel like moderating the pics for anything illegal, let's pass a TOS change that's really stupid but lets us have less work to do".
They keep shooting theirself in the feet (or rather, the legs now, their feet are long gone from earlier stupid actions)


-----------------------------------
Posy
Wednesday, 23 March 2005, 05:08 PM


-----------------------------------
You can't always decide for yourself.


-----------------------------------
Visitor
Wednesday, 23 March 2005, 09:40 PM


-----------------------------------
I really don't know the full story behind the TOS reviision, but from the little that I have read, there was a "squeaky wheel" complaining.  To have peace they changed the TOS to please this person.  However, the wording of the change TOS and guidelines is really poorly written and self-contradictory.

By the way since last night they have once again changed the wording of the guidelines, but the TOS does not reflect any of the revisions sine the first announcement.  There are seven key items in the current (for now) guidelines here I would like to pick them apart to show how poorly eritten they are:

In the guidelines is say, "No child nudity of any kind"  then it goes on to specificly prohibit, "exposed chest on females, buttocks or genitals"  That is an error that says prohibits "exposed chest on females", "exposed chest on buttocks" or "exposed chest on genitals".  Other than the gramatical error, this first item prohibits child nudity without providing for exceptions.

In the next point they limit the its statement to "characters under the age of 18".  Rather than "characters that [i]appear to be[/i] under the age of 18".  That mean that they are talking about any character that appears to be of any age that were created after 1987 can not be nude.

Then they prohibit transparent cloths, censor blurs, blots, or anything witht eh word "Censored" written on it or any props to cover otherwise unclothed areas.  Since all clothing are a form of props, they have just prohibited the use of clothing as well.  Also if you have a picture of a child holding a mug of chocolate to his mouth, the mug prop is covering a part of his face and hand, those parts are not covered with clothing so the mug is now prohibited too. 

The next point is weel enought writen so I won't comment on it.

Next point: Now they say that babies can wear diapers, but fail to mention if an infant wearing only diapers is allowed. 

Then they say that they alone will determine the apparent age of a character.  OK, I can understand that.  But in viewing some of the images that they have already removed they have a very strange way of determining age.  I saw one image where the charcter had the figure of a woman.  Her her face was wrinkled with age her small breasts were quite saggy and her figure showed what once many have been an attractive one but is now withered by age.  I have found that image was deleted for being a nude child, determined by the smallness of her breasts.

The last point contradicts the point about the diaper, it says that in cases where "gender that is questionable on an image with an exposed chest".  All babies are gender questionable, so no babies in only diapers.  Also the statement fails to mention whcih chest is in question.  So, that would mean that an image with a baby (fully clothed) or an alien (fully clothed) will be deleted if anyone else in the image is bare chested.

The actual TOS contradict all these points except for where the first point says "No child nudity of any kind".

So, as of at least last night, transparent body parts is the only way that childern and infants can be depicted according to these guidelines and the TOS.  Tomarrow, who knows what the guidelines will read as by then.

Pangor


-----------------------------------
Poserkatz
Wednesday, 23 March 2005, 10:22 PM


-----------------------------------
yeah...sniff...  :-k 
They had removed 2 pics of a friend of mine yesterday.
He had tell me about, and now he is thinking about to leave
that place.

His statement calls: "It's easy for me to stay - but it's also easy for me to go."
I think, he's right.

dumbness not knowing any frontiers  :bigrinnin: 

They also had removed his spnsorlink in this gallery... poor poor people...
They have time to sort pics out - but they don't have time to solve important problems...

Yeah, a real big "commercialty" with a bloody behaviour of amateurish moderating...

I'm happy, that i don't need that place to show my artworks  :bigrinnin:


-----------------------------------
Visitor
Wednesday, 23 March 2005, 11:59 PM


-----------------------------------
[quote]
In the next point they limit the its statement to "characters under the age of 18". Rather than "characters that appear to be under the age of 18". That mean that they are talking about any character that appears to be of any age that were created after 1987 can not be nude.
[/quote]

I was born in 1987. According to this rules every nude character must be older than me. :lmao:  :lol: I'm not sure there was Poser software in 1987  :-k . What a  :crazy: people!  :lol: 

[quote]
In the guidelines is say, "No child nudity of any kind" then it goes on to specificly prohibit, "exposed chest on females, buttocks or genitals" That is an error that says prohibits "exposed chest on females", "exposed chest on buttocks" or "exposed chest on genitals". Other than the gramatical error, this first item prohibits child nudity without providing for exceptions.
[/quote]

If their english is not very good (like mine 8-[ ) why are they waisting their time writing new TOS?  :-s 
Another thing I noticed was that in the store area the promo pictures for a caracter  "may contain artistical nudity". So when it's a promo pic it's "artistical" , but when there is nudity in some piece of art it's "pornographic".  :-s  :-k   :-({|=


-----------------------------------
Visitor
Wednesday, 23 March 2005, 11:59 PM


-----------------------------------
I agree with you, Poserkatz.  I use that place as a 3d art materials search engine, a source of tutorials, and another gallery to post my pictures in.  I have met a couple of nice people there, whom I invited to join us here.  Other than that, the place feels like a wilderness to me with a few good artist here and there.  I like review the works of those artists.

While they said that there would be a grace period of a few weeks before they start enforcing the new rules, I have also noticed people who had their accounts banned already.  In the case of one artist, I first saw the work of day before yesterday posted on another site after the images were banned from Renderosity.  After seeing those images, I thought they were very well done, so I searched for the artist's gallery at Renderosity to add to my favorite artist list.  Guess what?  I found nothing but an empty gallery and homepage.  I sent a message to the artist asking if the same username was being used at both websites.  I founf out in the reply that gallery images had already been deleted by the site and the account has been permantly banned, for violating the new TOS.  What happened to the grace period?  In the reply I was also given the url for the artist's own website.  There I saw some of the images that had been in the gallery at Renderosity, the images that they were worried about was only a fraction of the works of this artist.  And the artist had been removing the images from the gallery as they demanded at the very time that the account was locked out!

I have seen such refugee pictures on several sites, and you know what?  They are all beautiful, with no "filth" content at all.  In fact, the religious in churches showing the infant Jesus are far more explicit than any of the refugee images.

I am so glad that we have such a place as PF is, for a homebase.  Thanks Posy and Tormentor.

Pangor


-----------------------------------
Posy
Wednesday, 23 March 2005, 11:59 PM


-----------------------------------
Where did you meet him? Do you mean you and me have? What are you on?


-----------------------------------
Tormie
Thursday, 24 March 2005, 01:54 AM


-----------------------------------
8-[  8-[  8-[ This seems a serious thing friends...  :-k  :-k  :-k We've not a written rules for the album, it's all based on the trust. But, what's your idea for a rule on this matter (children characters) ?


-----------------------------------
Poserkatz
Thursday, 24 March 2005, 02:21 AM


-----------------------------------
I think, PF need no rule in this case. Here are a lot of staff memebers,
it based on trust and if someone break/abuse the trust, the pic have to
be deleted.
Currently we "artbox" is working on a new site and we discuss those
maybe problems, but we deceide to give less rules and trust in the
common sense - if it will be abused to much and to often, than we
can make other rules...
I think, that's the only way to a "true" community. Seriously.


-----------------------------------
Visitor
Thursday, 24 March 2005, 02:22 AM


-----------------------------------
Sorry, Tormentor, I did not mean to stir up trouble.

In general I would say to continue as we have.  So, if you think that there will be a need for an actual code it could just be based on the sort of art that has already been submitted.

I will think on this, and see what sort of suggestions I can come up with.

Pangor


-----------------------------------
Visitor
Thursday, 24 March 2005, 02:58 AM


-----------------------------------
How about something simple like:

Do not post images containing lewd displays of genetalia, any sexual
interactions, or contact.

Any image considered unacceptable by the webmaster and/or the majority of
the staff can be removed.


Pangor

PS. I really need to type better then I would not need to edit to correct my typos.


-----------------------------------
Visitor
Thursday, 24 March 2005, 03:02 AM


-----------------------------------
I like what Poserkatz said. 

Pangor


-----------------------------------
Visitor
Thursday, 24 March 2005, 04:07 AM


-----------------------------------
[quote]
Do not post images containing lewd displays of genetalia, any sexual 
interactions, or contact. 

Any image considered unexceptable by the webmaster and/or the majority of 
the staff can be removed.
[/quote]

Simple and clear!  :clap:  :bigrinnin:  :bigrinnin:  :bigrinnin: 
Maybe now R'osity motto would be : " We censure even the censorship!"  :-s  :lmao:  :lol:  :lmao:  Just jokking.


-----------------------------------
Tormie
Thursday, 24 March 2005, 09:49 AM


-----------------------------------
Lol !  :bigrinnin:


-----------------------------------
Posy
Thursday, 24 March 2005, 09:49 AM


-----------------------------------
Perhaps I'm just expressing my own concern about it.


-----------------------------------
Tormie
Thursday, 24 March 2005, 09:50 AM


-----------------------------------
How are you today honey darling?


-----------------------------------
Posy
Thursday, 24 March 2005, 09:50 AM


-----------------------------------
My logic and cognitive functions are normal.


