The dress that is nude colored - I agree it's opaque over the tattoo, but if you look where the panties are, we can clearly see her panties, so you can't suggest the entire dress is opaque.

Unfortunately you've missed the point, probably because I didn't articulate it very well, so here it is. Images that are borderline are removed and the submitter is then penalized. Rather than images that are borderline are given the benefit of the doubt with the member being advised to be more careful.

Erin Koski wrote:
Sometimes we make mistakes.  I think the image linked above is probably one we should have removed (where the arms are covering the breasts and it's not likely the dress is completey covering both areolas and nipples). 

We are doing everythign we can to be consistent.  I wish I had a way of showing you the work that we do, but I don't have a good way to do that. 



Sooooooo, we the inhabitants of this netherworld, get to pay the price (in inane demerits and scolding) for your (collectively) inconsistencies  .  .  .  as has been mentioned many, many, many times in the past, continuing to use a flawed system in a very inconsistent manner is certainly not the way to run any enterprise, and your (again collectively) feeble explanations after the fact just make matters worse  .  .  .  silence would indeed be golden as an alternative  .  .  .  or perhaps having one of those sleep inducing background soundtracks touted on the tube play constantly may soothe the ire of the crowd  .  .  .  are those crickets I hear  .  .  . 

SOS

JQuest wrote:

Unfortunately you've missed the point, probably because I didn't articulate it very well, so here it is. Images that are borderline are removed and the submitter is then penalized. Rather than images that are borderline are given the benefit of the doubt with the member being advised to be more careful.

I understood that point.  We are going to err on the side of caution rather than giving benefit of the doubt in many cases.

The exceptions are that I try to give benefit of doubt when I think model certainly was photographed nude, but I can come up with ways he or she might not be nude, and use that to justify keeping an image in the POTD contest rather than disqualifiying it. 

If it's hard for me to imagine how the model is not nude, or if everything points to the image being mature, I will treat the image as mature. 

EG: It's not uncommon for us to DQ an image for visible areola and have the member tell us that's just a shadow.  But when the "shadow" is in the exact shape and size and placement of a typical areola, we are going to treat it as an areola.

Erin Koski wrote:
I understood that point.  We are going to err on the side of caution rather than giving benefit of the doubt in many cases.

We know, perhaps you would like to opine on what effect thist type of moderation has had on the ever dwindling number of POTD18+ entries, and the frustration that members continue to have and what the effect might be if you changed the punitive nature of the moderating? I understand it's not going to happen but it's fun to conjecture.

And the actual point was; what is the rational for penalizing members for borderline images unless you're trying to drive participation down? No one is complaining about images that clearly violate the rules.

Erin Koski wrote:
I honestly don't know what the effect is.  I know some people will stop participating in the contests, but personally I don't think it's a large number compared to those who quit the contests just because they find something else they prefer to do on another social platform other than MM.  I think that's the bigger issue overall, and not one I'm in any position to have sway over.

I would personally have no problem going back to the time when bare butts were allowable in the POTD contest and we could be a lot more lenient.

Thank you for your continued engagement on this topic.

Erin Koski wrote:
I honestly don't know what the effect is.  I know some people will stop participating in the contests, but personally I don't think it's a large number compared to those who quit the contests just because they find something else they prefer to do on another social platform other than MM.  I think that's the bigger issue overall, and not one I'm in any position to have sway over.

I would personally have no problem going back to the time when bare butts were allowable in the POTD contest and we could be a lot more lenient.

I saw like 6 photos entered for today?

Erin Koski wrote:
Yes, that was an unusually low day.  I was surprised!

The rest of us aren't  .  .  .  once again I've been chastised for trying to enter one of the contests (the POTD version), this time with an image that has appeared in the exact same contest twice previously without incident  .  .  .

https://photos.modelmayhem.com/potd/ent … 1711402466

.  .  .  now. suddenly, it's been deemed to be in violation of the exact same rules it was deemed to be in compliance with in the past  .  .  .  confusin' ain't it!

UPDATE:  I was just informed that the image was ruled to be mature this time around (so, I'm assuming "they" must have gotten it wrong the first time it was submitted) because if Ms D had been unshaven when the image in question was created surely her pubic hair would be visible, thereby making it a mature image  .  .  .  unbelievably inane and ludicrous, as somehow, miraculously the Mods have insight into how Ms D's "garden" grows when left on it's own accord  .  .  .  neither they (the Mods) nor I know if Ms D was clean shaven or not when the image was taken, as neither of us saw her nude during the shoot  .  .  .  does this now mean if a model is nude under the clothing they're wearing (clean shaven or not) during a shoot, that those images must now be considered mature and only be eligible for the POTD18+ portion of the contest?  Confusin' ain't it!

As an aside, because of their inability to render rational, consistent rulings as it pertains to the POTD and POTD18+ contests Mod (?) is awarded an additional 3000 demerits, bringing their current total to 458,788 demerits, far in excess of the total needed (60 demerits) to ban that Mod from participating in the contests in any way until further notice, please comply immediately, you'll be informed at a later date as to if or when you'll be allowed to participate again, thank you for your kind attention in this matter  .  .  . 

FURTHER UPDATE:  I just received the official "have a nice day" response to my query about further explanation as to the ruling on my failed entry, so as to try and preempt falling afoul of the mystery basis for said ruling in the future   .  .  .  not sure how that helps clarify anything pertaining to the subject, but it's always pleasant to receive a cheery note from any source at my advanced age  .  .  . 

SOS

Random Image wrote:
I saw like 6 photos entered for today?

I think those entries were from the day when the site was going extremely slowly. I almost didn't enter the contests that day because it was literally taking 3+ minutes to load a page. I'm thinking that contributed to the low number of entries.

sospix wrote:

The rest of us aren't  .  .  .  once again I've been chastised for trying to enter one of the contests (the POTD version), this time with an image that has appeared in the exact same contest twice previously without incident  .  .  .

https://photos.modelmayhem.com/potd/ent … 1711402466

.  .  .  now. suddenly, it's been deemed to be in violation of the exact same rules it was deemed to be in compliance with in the past  .  .  .  confusin' ain't it!

UPDATE:  I was just informed that the image was ruled to be mature this time around (so, I'm assuming "they" must have gotten it wrong the first time it was submitted) because if Ms D had been unshaven when the image in question was created surely her pubic hair would be visible, thereby making it a mature image  .  .  .  unbelievably inane and ludicrous, as somehow, miraculously the Mods have insight into how Ms D's "garden" grows when left on it's own accord  .  .  .  neither they (the Mods) nor I know if Ms D was clean shaven or not when the image was taken, as neither of us saw her nude during the shoot  .  .  .  does this now mean if a model is nude under the clothing they're wearing (clean shaven or not) during a shoot, that those images must now be considered mature and only be eligible for the POTD18+ portion of the contest?  Confusin' ain't it!

As an aside, because of their inability to render rational, consistent rulings as it pertains to the POTD and POTD18+ contests Mod (?) is awarded an additional 3000 demerits, bringing their current total to 458,788 demerits, far in excess of the total needed (60 demerits) to ban that Mod from participating in the contests in any way until further notice, please comply immediately, you'll be informed at a later date as to if or when you'll be allowed to participate again, thank you for your kind attention in this matter  .  .  . 

FURTHER UPDATE:  I just received the official "have a nice day" response to my query about further explanation as to the ruling on my failed entry, so as to try and preempt falling afoul of the mystery basis for said ruling in the future   .  .  .  not sure how that helps clarify anything pertaining to the subject, but it's always pleasant to receive a cheery note from any source at my advanced age  .  .  . 

SOS

I've been denied similar images for the regular contest. Usually I'm told it's because the legs are apart and the bottoms are too small. I had both of these shots rejected for the regular contest for "too much pubic area":

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/48248487
https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/48248485

3rd Stream Photo wrote:
somebody please help me figure this one out. I just had this removed from the POTD contest (no points given thankfully) for the usual “at least one mature image element” thing, with the suggestion that I post it in the 18+ POTD…can you imagine the laughs that would get?

https://photos.modelmayhem.com/potd/ent … 95-big.jpg

Beautiful image and just another example of what a joke this site has become.

Studio NSFW wrote:
If this site is a joke, then it must be a joke in a Paulie Shore movie because I ain’t laughing.

The contests are a joke.  It's not funny, it's sad.

I'll happily accept any rational, informative, coherent interactions from any source, what's typically being spewed out in "Mod Messages" is anything but  .  .  .  in this instance, there was a real opportunity to provide (by the Mods) concise information to try and establish usable boundaries for images to be included/excluded in either the POTD or the POTD18+ contests, none was forthcoming, and when pressed to be more exacting the "Hulk"appears and tells me to "have a nice day", no useful information, or further explanation, just a condescending , passive/aggresive, playground response, sad to see indeed!  As to your final point, neither you (collectively), nor I know how Ms D's garden grows naturally, and to suppose that you (collectively) somehow are privy to that information and what constitutes "natural, unaltered biology" on any model's person is truly ludicrous  .  .  .  if you (collectively) were to use that basis on the vast majority of images in the POTD contest where the models are sporting bikini bottoms, modern undergarments, or various other apparel items, none would be allowable in the contest  .  .  .  if your (collectively) aim is to completely eliminate participation in the contests, you're on then right track!

SOS

Hey Mr K, thanks for the input, neither of those explanations were sighted as the initial reason behind the exclusion of Ms D's image (keeping in mind, that exact image had been included in the POTD twice before without incident), it wasn't until pressed for more exacting reasoning that the ridiculous pubic hair (or lack thereof) explanation came to light  .  .  .  I can only imagine what their (collectively) response would be to a model sporting a merkin, "horrors" and apoplexy would surely ensue!

SOS

rxz wrote:

The contests are a joke.  It's not funny, it's sad.

True story.

sospix wrote:
Hey Mr K, thanks for the input, neither of those explanations were sighted as the initial reason behind the exclusion of Ms D's image (keeping in mind, that exact image had been included in the POTD twice before without incident), it wasn't until pressed for more exacting reasoning that the ridiculous pubic hair (or lack thereof) explanation came to light  .  .  .  I can only imagine what their (collectively) response would be to a model sporting a merkin, "horrors" and apoplexy would surely ensue!

SOS

I've never been given the explanation about where pubic hair can grow. That seemed like an odd explanation to me as well. Typically, Mod7 is the one who I interact with the most, especially because I send pretty much all of my images for the contest to the [email protected] email account beforehand for approval or rejection, so I don't accrue any points when they're rejected. He's never once said anything about pubic hair, or area where pubic hair would grow. He's simply said "too much pubic area" is visible, and I've always taken that at face value.

I guess that could mean the same thing as "where pubic hair can grow", but I'm quite certain I've seen images, even recently, in the regular POTD contest that show area where pubic hair can grow (because of visible bumps where shaving has taken place), so that explanation does seem a bit odd to me, but looking at the actual site rules about what's considered a mature image, one of them listed says "Any area that would normally be covered by pubic hair". So, that's probably why they said that.

This is another one of those things that is open to interpretation by the mods, especially given the fact that some people are more hairy than others in the pubic area. I happen to know of a couple models who's pubic hair grows almost up to their bellybutton and outwards onto part of their legs, but those areas wouldn't be considered part of the "pubic area". I think maybe the mods should reconsider the wording on that particular rule, or just remove it entirely, since the one right above it seems to cover the matter pretty well: "Pubic area: Also known as the bikini area, from the pubic bone down and from thigh to thigh".

KenPhoto wrote:
I've been denied similar images for the regular contest. Usually I'm told it's because the legs are apart and the bottoms are too small. I had both of these shots rejected for the regular contest for "too much pubic area":

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/48248487
https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/48248485

sospix wrote:
Hey Mr K, thanks for the input, neither of those explanations were sighted as the initial reason behind the exclusion of Ms D's image (keeping in mind, that exact image had been included in the POTD twice before without incident), it wasn't until pressed for more exacting reasoning that the ridiculous pubic hair (or lack thereof) explanation came to light  .  .  .  I can only imagine what their (collectively) response would be to a model sporting a merkin, "horrors" and apoplexy would surely ensue!

SOS

This image of mine:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/48248487

had been in the regular contest 9 times before. So, it's not unheard of or even uncommon for the mods to suddenly decide an image is mature when it hasn't been considered so for numerous entries in the regular POTD contest. I just don't want you to think you're the only one this has happened to.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/contests/po … ups/240204 (3rd place)
https://www.modelmayhem.com/contests/po … ups/231224 (3rd place)
https://www.modelmayhem.com/contests/po … ups/231113 (5th place)
https://www.modelmayhem.com/contests/po … ups/231017 (4th place)
https://www.modelmayhem.com/contests/po … ups/230914 (3rd place)
https://www.modelmayhem.com/contests/po … ups/230824 (3rd place)
https://www.modelmayhem.com/contests/po … ups/230720 (2nd place)
https://www.modelmayhem.com/contests/po … ups/230628 (4th place)
https://www.modelmayhem.com/contests/po … ups/230612 (2nd place)

KenPhoto wrote:
I've never been given the explanation about where pubic hair can grow. That seemed like an odd explanation to me as well. Typically, Mod7 is the one who I interact with the most, especially because I send pretty much all of my images for the contest to the [email protected] email account beforehand for approval or rejection, so I don't accrue any points when they're rejected. He's never once said anything about pubic hair, or area where pubic hair would grow. He's simply said "too much pubic area" is visible, and I've always taken that at face value.

I guess that could mean the same thing as "where pubic hair can grow", but I'm quite certain I've seen images, even recently, in the regular POTD contest that show area where pubic hair can grow (because of visible bumps where shaving has taken place), so that explanation does seem a bit odd to me, but looking at the actual site rules about what's considered a mature image, one of them listed says "Any area that would normally be covered by pubic hair". So, that's probably why they said that.

This is another one of those things that is open to interpretation by the mods, especially given the fact that some people are more hairy than others in the pubic area. I happen to know of a couple models who's pubic hair grows almost up to their bellybutton and outwards onto part of their legs, but those areas wouldn't be considered part of the "pubic area". I think maybe the mods should reconsider the wording on that particular rule, or just remove it entirely, since the one right above it seems to cover the matter pretty well: "Pubic area: Also known as the bikini area, from the pubic bone down and from thigh to thigh".

You're right that this is what I was referring to: "Any area that would normally be covered by pubic hair."

And I also think your description is more clear.  I'll bring it up, though we make changes so infrequently (for better or worse), I'm not sure if it will be adopted.  At least I can keep the wording for any time in the future when we're alreay expecting to inact changes, at which point I can recommend this again.

You're also right that we don't consider hairs growing up near the belly button, or on the inner thigh to be considered as pubic hair, even if they are the same type of hairs.  With images of male models it's frequently tricky since they are more likely to have hair from their shaft all the way to their belly button.

Erin Koski wrote:
You're also right that we don't consider hairs growing up near the belly button, or on the inner thigh to be considered as pubic hair, even if they are the same type of hairs.  With images of male models it's frequently tricky since they are more likely to have hair from their shaft all the way to their belly button.

All the more reason to remove that wording and just stick with the "Pubic area: Also known as the bikini area, from the pubic bone down and from thigh to thigh". That seems to be at least as clear to me and adding something about pubic hair would just serve to muddy the water in my opinion. I can see where someone would say, "Well, the pubic bone starts in different places for different people." And that's where the mods' judgement has to come into play.

I've definitely had times when I felt an image of mine covered more of the "pubic area" than another I'd seen in the regular contest, but mine got rejected. I just have to accept what the mods end up deciding and that's why I always get the shots pre-approved before submitting them, even if I'm pretty sure they're fine. Ultimately, it's going to come down to if the mods think the image goes outside of the rules or not. It'll always be subjective.

KenPhoto wrote:

All the more reason to remove that wording and just stick with the "Pubic area: Also known as the bikini area, from the pubic bone down and from thigh to thigh". That seems to be at least as clear to me and adding something about pubic hair would just serve to muddy the water in my opinion. I can see where someone would say, "Well, the pubic bone starts in different places for different people." And that's where the mods' judgement has to come into play.

I've definitely had times when I felt an image of mine covered more of the "pubic area" than another I'd seen in the regular contest, but mine got rejected. I just have to accept what the mods end up deciding and that's why I always get the shots pre-approved before submitting them, even if I'm pretty sure they're fine. Ultimately, it's going to come down to if the mods think the image goes outside of the rules or not. It'll always be subjective.

The fact that you have to get shots pre-approved and that a shot had been allowed in the contest 9 nines before it was rejected says it all.

Seems unlikely based on the fact the even the Mods can't agree on the stated rules, nor the explanations doled out once they've botched a ruling  .  .  .  as to my personal "understanding" of the rules as currently exhibited, I assure you I'm fully capable of both reading and understanding them in their current form, myself and many other members trying to participate in the contests without being unduly banned (or awarded "points") have (I'm sure) passed our basic reading/understanding protocols with flying colours!

SOS

Eric212Grapher wrote:
1. Some images require a debate and discussion of mods to determine if it is acceptable to the contests; however, the person submitting must have perfect application of the rules to not get demerits.

Yes, but you can avoid the demerits if you get your images pre-approved by emailing them to [email protected].

Eric212Grapher wrote:
2. As adults, we can ask a "Mommy, may I?" to avoid the demerits.

Yes. They are the moderators of this website and as much as it may feel like asking "Mommy, may I?" we do have to follow their rules and get their approval. Or, we can simply not use the site as many have chosen to do, but you will get similar treatment at other websites and many (like Instagram) will just remove posts without giving you any ability to talk to an actual person. At least here the mods do respond, even if they don't agree with you.

Eric212Grapher wrote:
3. A  minority of people have a stronger voice than the majority of voters in the contests.

Are you referring to the mods as the minority of people? Again, their site, their rules.

Eric212Grapher wrote:
4. A decision by the mods is absolute. Do not question for appeal. They will double down.

Not always. I have had the mods change their minds a few times, but it is rare.

Eric212Grapher wrote:
5. POTD18+ is now POTD-PG13. Images acceptable for portfolios are not always welcome to represent the site in the new contests.

I wouldn't say PG13. Maybe R-rated. I don't think PG13 can get away with full-frontal nudity. And an R-rating is basically consistent with 18+.

Eric212Grapher wrote:
6. The imagination of the mods is more important than what is actually seen in an image.

Absolutely this is true. I've literally proven to a mod that an outfit wasn't see-through at all and they still considered the image mature. You can argue until you're blue in the face, or just accept their decision and move on.

Eric212Grapher wrote:
7, A "win" in the new contests is a shallow victory. The mods have effectively eliminated the competition that the voters might have selected.

It for sure reduced the entries. Whether or not the entries that were denied would have won is purely speculation. In the 18+ contest the "open-leg" images were almost always the ones that won, so yes, in that case if they still allowed those kinds of images they'd probably still be winning the majority of the time. Since a sizeable part of the voting base on this website are straight men, the more provocative images would often get the most votes, because that's how most men's minds work.

I think a number of the members on the website are just here for nude images of women, regardless of any artistic merit. So, for me personally, I'd rather have a smaller number of entries if it means leaning more toward artistic images than borderline porn. But that's just me.

Eric212Grapher wrote:
3. A  minority of people have a stronger voice than the majority of voters in the contests.

KenPhoto wrote:
Are you referring to the mods as the minority of people? Again, their site, their rules.

not necessarily the mods, but the few who thought spread legs were unfairly winning. They complained, and the mods responded with the new rules. The mods totally ignored the voters. I simply cast my vote for images I found more artistic, but being an adult, I accepted the decision of the plurality of voters.

Eric212Grapher wrote:
4. A decision by the mods is absolute. Do not question for appeal. They will double down.

KenPhoto wrote:
Not always. I have had the mods change their minds a few times, but it is rare.

My experience is when you push back, the mods dig in their heels. No amount of logic or evidence changes their minds. The only time they "change their minds" is when they realize they should have DQ'd an entry because they recently DQ'd an entry of lesser violation. They gravitate to more strict rulings rather than lesser.

Eric212Grapher wrote:
5. POTD18+ is now POTD-PG13. Images acceptable for portfolios are not always welcome to represent the site in the new contests.

KenPhoto wrote:
I wouldn't say PG13. Maybe R-rated. I don't think PG13 can get away with full-frontal nudity. And an R-rating is basically consistent with 18+.

Perhaps a full spreadie would be R-rated, but a slight A-stance ought not be declared graphic, obscene, explicit, too frightful for their Puritan mindset.

Eric212Grapher wrote:
6. The imagination of the mods is more important than what is actually seen in an image.

KenPhoto wrote:
Absolutely this is true. I've literally proven to a mod that an outfit wasn't see-through at all and they still considered the image mature. You can argue until you're blue in the face, or just accept their decision and move on.

I'm well past blue, moved onto purple. Remaining silent is acceptance. The mods get it into their heads that silence means they have a done a wonderful thing, and they become prouder of their actions. I'd rather see them constantly defend their indefensible positions. At some point, even they have to realize they are defending a foolish position. Perhaps I am, but images like your with the tan liner being DQ'd is one we shake our collective heads. When I see them defending their action on that image, I realize they make up something in their heads, and there is literally nothing they cannot imagination for another image.

Eric212Grapher wrote:
7, A "win" in the new contests is a shallow victory. The mods have effectively eliminated the competition that the voters might have selected.

KenPhoto wrote:
It for sure reduced the entries. Whether or not the entries that were denied would have won is purely speculation. In the 18+ contest the "open-leg" images were almost always the ones that won, so yes, in that case if they still allowed those kinds of images they'd probably still be winning the majority of the time. Since a sizeable part of the voting base on this website are straight men, the more provocative images would often get the most votes, because that's how most men's minds work.

I think a number of the members on the website are just here for nude images of women, regardless of any artistic merit. So, for me personally, I'd rather have a smaller number of entries if it means leaning more toward artistic images than borderline porn. But that's just me.

We have both won the contests without spread legs entries. It is possible. And those victories mean more than the ones against a censored pool.

Perhaps MM's cleaning of inactive accounts should extend to accounts that simply come to view the contests. Not sure they can know that, but if a user hasn't uploaded an image in years, not left a message or comment, not sent even a friend request, maybe they should be declared inactive and removed.

Erin Koski wrote:

You're right that this is what I was referring to: "Any area that would normally be covered by pubic hair."

And I also think your description is more clear.  I'll bring it up, though we make changes so infrequently (for better or worse), I'm not sure if it will be adopted.  At least I can keep the wording for any time in the future when we're alreay expecting to inact changes, at which point I can recommend this again.

You're also right that we don't consider hairs growing up near the belly button, or on the inner thigh to be considered as pubic hair, even if they are the same type of hairs.  With images of male models it's frequently tricky since they are more likely to have hair from their shaft all the way to their belly button.

Thank you Erin for always trying to at least engage in discussion  unlike the moderator I dealt with who simply said follow the rules.

3rd Stream Photo wrote:
somebody please help me figure this one out. I just had this removed from the POTD contest (no points given thankfully) for the usual “at least one mature image element” thing, with the suggestion that I post it in the 18+ POTD…can you imagine the laughs that would get?

https://photos.modelmayhem.com/potd/ent … 95-big.jpg

You can't use logic with these unpaid Moderators they think they have power. Just stop playing the contest They have ruin it . Used to have to submit early or you didn't make the limited entry.  Now  They have trouble getting 20 entries. They are very unlogical to be nice,

Brett Hunt wrote:
They are very enological to be nice,

I also love wine.

Mark Salo wrote:

I also love wine.

yeah misspelled

3rd Stream Photo wrote:
somebody please help me figure this one out. I just had this removed from the POTD contest (no points given thankfully) for the usual “at least one mature image element” thing, with the suggestion that I post it in the 18+ POTD…can you imagine the laughs that would get?

https://photos.modelmayhem.com/potd/ent … 95-big.jpg

So when the mods imagine a body suit with a liner is naked because the model is hiding her nipples behind her arms. that is a DQ. But when a model actually wears a sheer lace bodysuit, well, that is a different matter altogether:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/contests/po … iew/769609

And the mods do not seem to understand why people distrust the mods' subjective rulings they make when they cannot seem to follow their own made up rulings.

Just calling this and others "mistakes" or "oversights" does not cut it when multiple mods make the rulings.

Eric212Grapher wrote:

So when the mods imagine a body suit with a liner is naked because the model is hiding her nipples behind her arms. that is a DQ. But when a model actually wears a sheer lace bodysuit, well, that is a different matter altogether:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/contests/po … iew/769609

And the mods do not seem to understand why people distrust the mods' subjective rulings they make when they cannot seem to follow their own made up rulings.

Just calling this and others "mistakes" or "oversights" does not cut it when multiple mods make the rulings.

The model in the second image could easily be wearing a strapless bra, which is why such an image is allowed.  We can also see that the model in the first image is definitely not, and I've already discussed at length why the image review team felt the dress was at least somewhat sheer over the front (based on how the rest of the dress appears).  I can't think of any other way to explain it more clearly.  I'm sorry if it's insufficient.

Your (collectively) suppositions, either in favour or against particular images are painfully ridiculous, you can either see, or you can't see what you've (collectively) deemed either within the rules, or not, neither image has anything listed on your POTD "rules sheet" visible, therefore, logically, both should have been included in the contest. .  .  .  I guess the word "logically" is what threw you (collectively)  .  .  .  continually, giving the same incorrect explanation, doesn't make that explanation any more correct  .  .  .

SOS

Erin Koski wrote:
The model in the second image could easily be wearing a strapless bra, which is why such an image is allowed.  We can also see that the model in the first image is definitely not, and I've already discussed at length why the image review team felt the dress was at least somewhat sheer over the front (based on how the rest of the dress appears).  I can't think of any other way to explain it more clearly.  I'm sorry if it's insufficient.

You feeling sorry does nothing to help clarify the situation.

The original image in the tan outfit CLEARLY has a lining in front and back with only the side sheer. That you (collectively) refuse to acknowledge what everyone else sees is beyond belief at this point. It is once again a situation where the mods made a decision and refuse to reconsider and reverse their decision. To reverse your decision would admit to the world that you are fallible. No mod wants to be consider a mere human that might have made a mistake. I get it.

That you fail apply the same logic to the blue outfit is baffling. This strapless bra that may or may not be worn is pure conjecture. Any of the images that were rejected for hand bras or crossed arms could claim the same, In fact, when a corner of a garment was present, you insisted it might not be worn high enough to cover the scary nipples hidden behind the arm - no magic strapless bra present in your mind on that one.

The reason for me pointing these things out is a vain attempt to get some logic applied to the rules. Since we are dealing in two dimensional images, the rules should be what we can see, not what we think we see. And definitely, not what the mods imagine they see.

If the stupid apps are the reason for this illogic you apply, only two logical choices remain: Scrap the apps, or scrap the contests. Using illogic to continue both is destructive of the community here.