Innula Zenovka

Da FAQ

However, you can manually eject and permaban trespassers the moment you realise they are on your parcel. It wouldn't be difficult to script a scanner to alter you as soon as it detects an intruder, and offer you some menu options to deal with them. The Belli covenant applies only to automated systems.

The FAQ says otherwise

For what it's worth, I find dragging the original out of sight, up in the air or off to the side, and then returning it to its position by selecting it in the editor and hitting CTRL-Z works. Copying the position and rotation of the original and pasting those in the editor both to position the temporary item and then reposition the original works, too.

Certainly, but I think the question of whether the avatar she creates in SL is allowed to be in certain areas is a rather different question. First, it's up to the region/parcel owner who they allow into their region/club/parcel/whatever, and if they decide they want to exclude her avatar because of the way the avatar looks, that's their decision. Second, it's up to LL's Governance team to deal with any abuse reports as they see fit. They say in the FAQ that so presumably, if there's any doubt about whether or not the avatar represents a child but they think it likely does, they'll advise the resident first before imposing any particular sanctions. They'll also, they say, consider the circumstances surrounding the AR -- what conversations the avatar was having, and with whom, and I'd imagine they'd look at the avatar's profile and groups too. If the woman keeps on finding her avatars get booted from adult venues, and particularly if she keeps on finding herself the subject of successful ARs, she'd be well-advised to choose a different avatar with which to visit those areas rather than keep trying to find out what the boundaries are with particular edge cases.

I don't see it myself. The older sisters of the av pictured in Katherine's post, maybe, or that avatar some years later.

If people are engaging in sexual activity in public on M land, whether it's the Blake Sea or anywhere else, that's clearly against the ToS and Adult Content policy, so I'd suggest you AR them.

Presumably the owner would be advised to consider moving to a region more readily accessible for their customer base. Either that or people will need to change to another avatar when they go shopping.

If you contrast the example you gave -- you sitting on a regular beach on the Blake Sea enjoying the sunset and some naked adult avatars passing by on their boat (I wonder how often this happens) vs you sitting on a "Family friendly" nude beach -- then I think the meaning of "the context of a location" is clear.

My reading of the ToS is that, so long as you're fully clothed and they're just skinny dipping, there's no infraction on either side.

Your example was I would say that the FAQ I quoted make it clear that the answer to your question is that neither the child av nor the people on the yacht would, in the example you give, be in violation of the ToS. Do you not agree?

The FAQ (am I the only person who has read them?) address this very point:

Though region owners who don't, for whatever reason, want child avatars (or anyone else) on their region didn't need to wait until now to ban them, so I wonder what's changed?

I'm not so sure. Nudity is permitted on M land, and I think it's legitimate for LL to want to keep naked child avatars off nude beaches, and certainly not to want to have them photographed near naked adult avatars. I'm not saying this is the best way to achieve that goal, but I think that's the reason for all this stuff about skins and modesty panels.

Under the new policy, child avatars are now restricted to M and G rated areas. That's new. They are allowed -- and the FAQ make this explicit -- allowed on M regions where there is adult furniture etc, so long as they don't actual engage in sexual activity, which they weren't allowed to before the changes, either.