And its great that RawArt’s changed his sigline graphic so gory severed limbs aren’t scattered through a bunch of other threads (thanks RawArt!). But currently everybody still has to browse by his violently and bloodily TOS-violating promo pic every time they visit the store. There’s already a couple of non-violating (or at least less-violating) promo pics up for this (like the one I’ve posted below) that could be swapped into the main-promo slot from home in a couple minutes by somebody with the access, which we know some DAZzlers have. So why hasn’t this been done already?
There is NO TOS violation and all artwork has been approved by daz….and the current artwork also reflects changes they specifically asked for.
You are welcome to take anything up with daz when they are in the office. That is what they are there for. But do not imply that the work is in any kind of violation.
The image for the severed man don’t really bother me. I glanced at it. Moved on to check out the cool vampire LEON M5.
I can understand why people are bothered by certain images. I’ve left certain sights because the imagery has crossed the line. Everyone has different triggers of things that bother them.
And its great that RawArt’s changed his sigline graphic so gory severed limbs aren’t scattered through a bunch of other threads (thanks RawArt!). But currently everybody still has to browse by his violently and bloodily TOS-violating promo pic every time they visit the store. There’s already a couple of non-violating (or at least less-violating) promo pics up for this (like the one I’ve posted below) that could be swapped into the main-promo slot from home in a couple minutes by somebody with the access, which we know some DAZzlers have. So why hasn’t this been done already?
There is NO TOS violation and all artwork has been approved by daz….and the current artwork also reflects changes they specifically asked for.
You are welcome to take anything up with daz when they are in the office. That is what they are there for. But do not imply that the work is in any kind of violation.
Thank You
I didn’t imply it — Richard stated it outright. Unless I’ve misunderstood, and the below image (currently the main promo pic for the product) is okay within the TOS and can be posted anywhere on the site?
Again, no two people are going to agree on what’s appropriate and what is not. Guess what? That’s OK. It makes the world a more interesting place. What is NOT OK is being disrespectful about that opinion and not being able to discuss it without being disrespectful. Please please everyone, express your opinions without being disrespectful to one another. Isn’t there enough bad stuff going on in the world?
I found unnecessary post the main promo image here, because THAT image was the beginning for this thread started.
Sorry, but that’s why I found it necessary to post it here, given that I was accused of implying it’s a TOS violation when it’s not. Except I’m pretty sure Richard said it is. Is it? If so, then you can report it as such, a mod will remove it, and RawArt owes me an apology (not that I’m looking for one, that’s not the point). And, regardless of who approved it or why, it therefor shouldn’t be the product’s main promo pic in the store, and should be switched out just as quickly as any other TOS-violating pic — we shouldn’t have to wait till Monday for that.
Do you really think making a big deal over this is going to help your case? It sounds as if you are ok with artistic nudity and would like to see it allowed here. But you are offended by gore. Rawn pushed the boundaries and got something allowed that probably would not have been allowed before. By making a huge deal over this it is going to make Daz not want to allow the boundaries to be pushed again. When someone tries to push the boundaries again with something more like you would want to see, Daz is going to look back on how people reacted to this and think… nope, not touching that, we saw what happened before. Instead of getting upset by this, you should be looking at it as the boundaries of what can be shown have been expanded, that will make it easier to be expanded again. Maybe if we can push the line over for gore… then maybe they can be pushed a little on the nudity side as well.
Personally I am totally against censorship, I want to see total artistic freedom for everyone. Anyone who expands the limits of what can be shown is making things better for everyone. By complaining and making a big deal over this you will likely see more restrictions in the future, not less.
I found unnecessary post the main promo image here, because THAT image was the beginning for this thread started.
Sorry, but that’s why I found it necessary to post it here
Agreed, in fact, it was firstly posted in mi initial post of this thread, but was removed due to big boobs and areolas injected on my Hitomi…go figure!!
You want to know what I find absolutely hilarious about this entire subject. It does not matter in any way, shape or form, what one person considers to be artistic, it doesn’t matter what an entire group, small or large, considers to be artistic, could be tens of thousands consider something to be artistic. All it takes is one person to find it offensive and the art is shut down. How is this possible????? Fear is what makes it possible, because contrary to what many believe, one person really can make that kind of difference. I do not own my own website for a very good reason, I refuse to pay for something that tells me I can do whatever I want with it, within the law, obviously, however, I can do whatever I want so long as I follow their rules of what is allowed..basically giving and taking away all within the same paragraph., so I use free sites to build from. I refuse to pay for something that tells me what is considered art. I have no nudity on my forum, nothing objectionable in any way, yet a single individual can report me and without so much as an investigation to see if it’s true, my site would be shut down. So ask yourselves why Daz does things the way they do, it basically boils down to the same thing. Everyone here is an artist of some kind, each has their own interpretation of what is considered art, no one has the right to tell another what is art and yet you all do just that…this thread proves that.
I assume you subscribe to the “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” school of thought so loved by Bill Clinton as well.
There is only one way I’m aware of to insult someone worse than comparing him with that man, and that would be by comparing him to the current one. Luckily, I was trying to interject some levity into this thread, so I’ll overlook it.
The Severed man’s graphics clearly show violence done by individuals against others, whether that be actual, fantasy or implied. And the cover shot of what I assume to be a samurai holding a severed head in one hand and a sword in the other is quite graphic.
Sure it is graphic, but from the image it is NOT clear that that man dismembered the body. It could be that he came upon the body, and as happened in numerous plots, he was accused of being the killer. Is there blood on HIS sword? I don’t see any?
My point is that the TOS, as quoted, says violence, not the display of blood.
Be that as it may, can the image be disturbing to some? Yes. So can the images of a butcher shop, a dentist’s office, or many other images.
If the first promo picture was a warning that this item shows violent content, then everyone would be happy including those who view at work and around children.
If not we may as well throw the family site label out of the window and show everything in the same way Rendererotica does.
Sprinkles
If the site software’s tags were working, if, if, if.
Thank you Rawn for changing the banner ad, that one is more appropriate for the forums.
However, why is the samurai image still the main promo in the store? As I and others have already suggested, why can’t it be moved to be the last promo image so that only those interested in the product will see it?
I happen to think textures should be able to show full nudity in the promo images too (like at Rendo), but LIKE Rendo, there should be a content advisory label over thumbnails for such images. Is this really so hard? If Rawn’s image is meant to show the product in use, then nude textures should also be shown - with a warning. I would also say it’s inappropriate to show a completely nude man or woman as the first promotional image for an product. There should be one - just not the first one.
I’m not big on making occasional exceptions to the rule. I entered an image in the monthly gallery contest a while back that had violence (but no blood), it was posted and then removed and I received no notice of why. Fair enough, if it was too violent for the gallery, it needed to be removed. If I saw other violent images remain in the gallery, I’d be frustrated. Rawn’s samurai image is ten times more violent than the image I entered or anything we’re allowed to post in the forums. It simply shouldn’t be displayed as prominently as it currently is.
