liviamodel wrote:
No worse than some of the bondage shots I see people using as avatars which is in the rules not to do.

I second this ...

Red Ezra wrote:
Dave - fight the good fight - more nudity please here and everywhere - thanks for doing such kick ass work bro!!!

Right back at ya. Good meeting you at Glamourcon. I dig your work.

Dave Naz wrote:
I was surprised to see my LEGS book cover I used as my Avatar was censored (after 6 Months- a little late, aren’t we?), even though there is no nudity displayed in the photo. Belladonna’s Butt is high in the air, but the title covers all the juicy stuff and there is a star covering her nipple. This book sits on the shelves of Barnes & Nobel and is just a click away at Amazon, but one of the moderators of this site is too prude to let me display it as my Avatar? I don’t believe this image would harm anyone browsing the site.

Geeez... Dave... just coming home... and got to see another thread of a photographer feeling mistreated that a nekkid girl in "screw me now!" position can't be used as avatar.

You say it's a little late... yeah well... for whatever reason, your image/avatar must have not shown up so that a moderator could have seen it.

Now... if you are unclear about the rules and regulations of which images have to be marked 18+ and which are suitable for avatars, maybe you should read up on the rules and the FAQ in the info section.

"18+" doesn't mean "obscene" it means that it can't be viewed by our members of the ages 16 and 17.

At the time of me writing this, your post count is a the number five, which means that the chances that your avatar is being displayed and viewed by many moderators is close to ZERO, hence you got away with it.

We strive to keep Model Mayhem worksafe and your book cover is just not designed as being worksafe.

A member at work (non photography related, part timers, amateurs etc.) should be able to check their MM account and posts, without the boss looking over the shoulder and being accused of being on a porn site.

Hope it's getting clear... and, btw., fighting for the dubious right of making ones images available to 16 years old kids, is NOT a good fight in my book... at least what Model Mayhem is concerned.

Regards

UdoR
Moderator

Red Ezra wrote:
Dave - fight the good fight - more nudity please here and everywhere - thanks for doing such kick ass work bro!!!

If you don't have enough nudity here, and demand more, why don't you sign up for a pornsite, if that's what your heart desires.

There are enough other "modeling" sites where you can see all the nudity that you want.

Nudity is allowed, just has to be marked 18+ because of the minors.

You don't like it... nobody is forcing you to stay here.

Regards

UdoR
Moderator

UdoR wrote:

Geeez... Dave... just coming home... and got to see another thread of a photographer feeling mistreated that a nekkid girl in "screw me now!" position can't be used as avatar.

You say it's a little late... yeah well... for whatever reason, your image/avatar must have not shown up so that a moderator could have seen it.

Now... if you are unclear about the rules and regulations of which images have to be marked 18+ and which are suitable for avatars, maybe you should read up on the rules and the FAQ in the info section.

"18+" doesn't mean "obscene" it means that it can't be viewed by our members of the ages 16 and 17.

At the time of me writing this, your post count is a the number five, which means that the chances that your avatar is being displayed and viewed by many moderators is close to ZERO, hence you got away with it.

We strive to keep Model Mayhem worksafe and your book cover is just not designed as being worksafe.

A member at work (non photography related, part timers, amateurs etc.) should be able to check their MM account and posts, without the boss looking over the shoulder and being accused of being on a porn site.

Hope it's getting clear... and, btw., fighting for the dubious right of making ones images available to 16 years old kids, is NOT a good fight in my book... at least what Model Mayhem is concerned.

Regards

UdoR
Moderator

Forgive me Father, for I have sinned.
I actually don’t have a problem with 16 & 17 year olds looking at this book cover. I think seeing Dennis Franz’s ass or someone getting their head blown off on TV is much more damaging.

Dave Naz wrote:

Forgive me Father, for I have sinned.
I actually don’t have a problem with 16 & 17 year olds looking at this book cover. I think seeing Dennis Franz’s ass or someone getting their head blown off on TV is much more damaging.

I soo totally agree with you, especially coming from a country where nudity is not a problem (Germany)! (BTW, I was arguing pretty much that same point with a reactionary gentleman, right here in NYC - was weird having a guy like that here in the city.)

However, let me ask you a question.

What do you prefer on this free site for you?

A: A fundamental christian parent from the Midwest finds his/her 16 years old son jerking off to one of the nudes are suggestive nudes on Model Mayhem, and suing this site for making such "smut" readily available to their minor child. Causing Tyler (site owner) to having to spend money on legal defense, instead of investing that same money into a new server to make this site faster and able to cope with that explosive growth,... or...

B: Keeping the lawyers off our backs in the first place, by letting browse the kid "dedicated" websites to get his hormonally overactive rocks off and Tylers money can get invested back into this site to keep it free for all and improve speed and service. This is being achieved by simply marking images in question as 18+.

I don't know you, but you probably would chose "B", as I would do, and most of our over 70,000 members who understand what we are trying to do.

Sincerely;

UdoR
Moderator

UdoR wrote:
However, let me ask you a question.

What do you prefer on this free site for you?

A: A fundamental christian parent from the Midwest finds his/her 16 years old son jerking off to one of the nudes are suggestive nudes on Model Mayhem, and suing this site for making such "smut" readily available to their minor child. Causing Tyler (site owner) to having to spend money on legal defense, instead of investing that same money into a new server to make this site faster and able to cope with that explosive growth,... or...

B: Keeping the lawyers off our backs in the first place, by letting browse the kid "dedicated" websites to get his hormonally overactive rocks off and Tylers money can get invested back into this site to keep it free for all and improve speed and service. This is being achieved by simply marking images in question as 18+.

I don't know you, but you probably would chose "B", as I would do, and most of our over 70,000 members who understand what we are trying to do.

Sincerely;

UdoR
Moderator

First off, we could go to the root of the problem and arrest the Priests that teach children how to ‘stroke it’ in the first place. Then abolish organized Religion entirely. Well, that might solve too many of the worlds problems, namely, “WARâ€?! and I know this would never become a reality- It felt really good to say it, though.

I don’t want to see any Christian nut jobs sue this website, but honestly I could have been 14 years old, signed up and said I was 18. I would have access to the same photos, so what are we really accomplishing here?

I would suggest parents get net nanny or one of those other blocking devices, if they use the computer as a babysitter for their kids.

Dave Naz wrote:
First, off we could go to the root of the problem and arrest the Priests that teach children how to ‘stroke it’ in the first place.

Well, the root of the problem is NOT the priest... it is a society that was built on puritan principles.

As Jon Stewart in his "America Book" so excellent summarized:

"The Pilgrims were searching for freedom to practice the most stultifyingly oppressive brand of Christianity ever known to man."

And if you follow the current administrations plans to regress even more (the end times must be really near for them... what do they know that we don't?) it will be even harder.

Now, Model Mayhem's agenda is to be a modeling/fashion industry related networking site, but not a bastion of free speech. For that, we have the ACLU (I am a member), but it's not MM's MO to allocate resources for that fight.

All the best

Udo

bobby sargent wrote:
It should be gone. Any shot that has the model bent over and a star on her boobs is not something that some of these kids need to see. 

And I do agree with you that some of the other avatars that are up should not be.
They say you cannot have a nude but if she has on a thong "THAT IS OK"   Or if she has on a dark pair of panties that are in the shot but still make her look nude, THAT IS ALSO OK.  Anf forget the bondage junk.  They should all be gone as Avatar  IMHO of course.  bs

Are you kidding me? I'm looking at your 'Hoochie Girl' Avatar and all I can think is, the way you shot her looks like she's about to ask me if I'm a cop and give me her rates. You think that is acceptable!!?

UdoR wrote:
Well, the root of the problem is NOT the priest... it is a society that was built on puritan principles.

As Jon Stewart in his "America Book" so excellent summarized:

Can't get to the quote right now, but will do so later. I paraphrase: America was founded by the pilgrims, who fled Europe to find the freedom to practice the most opressive form of Christianity known to man" ... as I said, will get the exact quote and edit this portion later.

And if you follow the current administrations plans to regress even more (the end times must be really near for them... what do they know that we don't?) it will be even harder.


Udo

I agree with you, Jon Stewart is great. Buy his book after my three on Amazon. Wouldn't it would be great to arrest just a few of those child molesting priests? It really would make me happy.

Dave Naz wrote:

Are you kidding me? I'm looking at your 'Hoochie Girl' Avatar and all I can think is, the way you shot her looks like she's about to ask me if I'm a cop and give me her rates. You think that is acceptable!!?

Sure do.  She is not bent over or showing her nipple covered boobs.  She is a model that is playing a part.  She shows off what she can do with different looks.
Models are supposed to convey different styles, looks.

If you do not see the difference well there is nothing more I can say.  You have your mind set and nothing I can do or say will make any difference on how you feel.

Hey management banned your shot.  No me. bs

And I think you do have some nice work BTW.  But that shot did not belong as the avatar.  IMHO.

Susi wrote:
I an increasingly amused by what some people find offensive.

Yes, well, people have different sensitivity levels.  The moderators obviously can't be everywhere all the time, but if they see a picture that they think is borderline innapropriate for an avatar (which IMO the picture in question is) then they have every right to judge if it should not be displayed as such.  And it's not just for the kids....as has been said before, a lot of people look at this site during work (myself included) so to click on a page and have an image like that be displayed looks like we are trying to get access to a porn site that we haven't paid for yet so we can't see all her goodies yet  

Susi wrote:
Ah well, the site is free so we deal with it...that's the bottom line (my personal opinion aside).

There you go!   This has become my running motto because there has been a LOT of whining going on lately

Dave Naz wrote:
I was surprised to see my LEGS book cover I used as my Avatar was censored (after 6 Months- a little late, aren’t we?), even though there is no nudity displayed in the photo. Belladonna’s Butt is high in the air, but the title covers all the juicy stuff and there is a star covering her nipple. This book sits on the shelves of Barnes & Nobel and is just a click away at Amazon, but one of the moderators of this site is too prude to let me display it as my Avatar? I don’t believe this image would harm anyone browsing the site.

First of all, let me say that the photo on the cover, as well as the sample photos in your portfolio from the book are sensational.  They're very sexy, and certainly show of the subject matter wonderfully.  It's terrific work.

That said, I have to agree with Udo about the cover not really being something for the avatar.  Someone above mentioned the bondage avatars that some people have.  I do like it that avatars should be work safe because I do look at MM at my office (I am typing this right now at my office.)  The site has nothing against your book, as I am 100% sure that most people who see the photos will realize how terrific they are.  I have a lot of bondage photos in my portfolio (hey, it's what I do), but my avatar photo is deliberately not a bondage photo (although Marci in the photo was soon photographed under the pendulum in a 'Pit and the Pendulum' scene...)

Do keep up the great work, congratulations on three books already!    Great job!

UdoR wrote:

If you don't have enough nudity here, and demand more, why don't you sign up for a pornsite, if that's what your heart desires.

There are enough other "modeling" sites where you can see all the nudity that you want.

Nudity is allowed, just has to be marked 18+ because of the minors.

You don't like it... nobody is forcing you to stay here.

Regards

UdoR
Moderator

Yeah. What he said. BTW: If you folks haven't already done so, there is a networking site out there that allows nudity that doesn't have to be marked. Really. It's called garageglamour.com. Check it out. You can upload naked photos all day long to your hearts content and no one will censor it.

UdoR wrote:

I soo totally agree with you, especially coming from a country where nudity is not a problem (Germany)! (BTW, I was arguing pretty much that same point with a reactionary gentleman, right here in NYC - was weird having a guy like that here in the city.)

However, let me ask you a question.

What do you prefer on this free site for you?

A: A fundamental christian parent from the Midwest finds his/her 16 years old son jerking off to one of the nudes are suggestive nudes on Model Mayhem, and suing this site for making such "smut" readily available to their minor child. Causing Tyler (site owner) to having to spend money on legal defense, instead of investing that same money into a new server to make this site faster and able to cope with that explosive growth,... or...

B: Keeping the lawyers off our backs in the first place, by letting browse the kid "dedicated" websites to get his hormonally overactive rocks off and Tylers money can get invested back into this site to keep it free for all and improve speed and service. This is being achieved by simply marking images in question as 18+.

I don't know you, but you probably would chose "B", as I would do, and most of our over 70,000 members who understand what we are trying to do.

Sincerely;

UdoR
Moderator

My, you know what 70,000 people think (cough)-you are one busy Moderator!

[5] AVATAR. Again, we would like to keep ModelMayhem.com a "work-safe" environment. And since your avatar is open to the public, nudity or any other obscene material ("bloodwork", bondage, etc) is not allowed. If you are unsure if your avatar is acceptable, change it. Simple as that. Moderator's judgment applies here.

https://modelmayhem.com/faq.php

Why was my image marked "18+"?
The image contained nudity, depictions of violence or overtly sexual material. In other words, it wasn't "G-rated" enough. Adult members can still view the 18+ images when they are logged in. However, the images cannot be viewed by non-members or used as avatars. Besides preventing under-aged users from viewing possibly inappropriate material, this cuts down on non-members cruising the site for nekkid chicks and saves on bandwidth.

Brian Diaz wrote:
Just in case people are unfamiliar...

https://modelmayhem.com/rules.php

[5] AVATAR. Again, we would like to keep ModelMayhem.com a "work-safe" environment. And since your avatar is open to the public, nudity or any other obscene material ("bloodwork", bondage, etc) is not allowed. If you are unsure if your avatar is acceptable, change it. Simple as that. Moderator's judgment applies here.

https://modelmayhem.com/faq.php

Rules are rules true. My question though is if his book is just a click away at amazon it seems odd that MM is being more conservative than Amazon. I don't find the photo in question offensive in any way..its a great shot, but I do respect that this isn't my sandbox so I just go along for the ride and sometimes fall victim to the rules here. I see more "f me" posing anytime I turn on E and watch some celebrity awards show. The argument from Udo about keeping Tyler from having to deal with lawyers is certainly important though...but in this case if contacted by someone upset with the site I'm sure a simple letter explaining that the book is a click away on AMAZON could keep the dogs at bay. At this point Tyler does have a lawyer on retainer right?..

theda wrote:
Actually, I HAD seen it. It just hadn't occured to me to find it out of bounds. Damn subjectivity. Although I can see the other mods objections.

*the following is [yet another] rhetorical question*

I still don't get this.  What's the point of a "rule" that isn't [can't be] enforced uniformly?

Brian Diaz wrote:
Just in case people are unfamiliar...

https://modelmayhem.com/rules.php

[5] AVATAR. Again, we would like to keep ModelMayhem.com a "work-safe" environment. And since your avatar is open to the public, nudity or any other obscene material ("bloodwork", bondage, etc) is not allowed. If you are unsure if your avatar is acceptable, change it. Simple as that. Moderator's judgment applies here.

https://modelmayhem.com/faq.php

I feel like I've been here before.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
I still don't get this.  What's the point of a "rule" that isn't [can't be] enforced uniformly?

To confuse you and give you something to bitch about.  It's a feeble attempt to make the site more "friendly."

Studio200 wrote:
...it seems odd that MM is being more conservative than Amazon.

Did you know that Amazon sells hardcore pornography?

theda wrote:

To confuse you and give you something to bitch about.  It's a feeble attempt to make the site more "friendly."

You're going to have to work harder than this if you want to hear me bitching...I'm a vetran of the DeviantArt moderating corps...Their set of rules is much more conflicted.

I am curious why moderators can't seem to put their heads together and come up with a basic criteria that they all agree on.  I mean, geez, there's three mods on this thread alone so it can't be that difficult to find each other.

Brian Diaz wrote:

Did you know that Amazon sells hardcore pornography?

Really?  Can you send me links?

Dave Naz wrote:
I was surprised to see my LEGS book cover I used as my Avatar was censored (after 6 Months- a little late, aren’t we?), even though there is no nudity displayed in the photo. Belladonna’s Butt is high in the air, but the title covers all the juicy stuff and there is a star covering her nipple. This book sits on the shelves of Barnes & Nobel and is just a click away at Amazon, but one of the moderators of this site is too prude to let me display it as my Avatar? I don’t believe this image would harm anyone browsing the site.

Wow! That's a nice shot too. How pathetic, you can't see any sex organs in the pic. Why don't we have a way to dispute the arbitrary tastes of prudish moderators?

UdoR wrote:
Well, the root of the problem is NOT the priest... it is a society that was built on puritan principles.

As Jon Stewart in his "America Book" so excellent summarized:

Can't get to the quote right now, but will do so later. I paraphrase: America was founded by the pilgrims, who fled Europe to find the freedom to practice the most opressive form of Christianity known to man" ... as I said, will get the exact quote and edit this portion later.

And if you follow the current administrations plans to regress even more (the end times must be really near for them... what do they know that we don't?) it will be even harder.

Now, Model Mayhem's agenda is to be a modeling/fashion industry related networking site, but not a bastion of free speech. For that, we have the ACLU (I am a member), but it's not MM's MO to allocate resources for that fight.

All the best

Udo

Your a member of the ACLU?

Do you support NAMBLA as well, they sure a hell do. The ACLU doesn't support free speech, they support free speech that they like (and the rights of middle aged men to molest young boys).