Qie Niangao

Fortunately indeed. Maybe you can talk some sense into the others.

If that's the result, IMHO, M-rated land is not fit for purpose. Who wants to site a store, say, where a bunch of prospective customers are uncomfortable? Or the kind of venue we all thought SL was made for, like Hotel Chelsea? Or even just a residence, if we have any child avatar friends who might visit if M weren't a potential minefield? That's not a good look either. (Actually… I realize I don't even understand the problem with the optics of a fully-clothed child avatar in the presence of nudity. I realize this isn't the appropriate forum to give me remedial kink training, but other than making the nude, non-child avatar look like a hapless creep… I don't get who looks at that and says: "Wow! That pushes all the wrong buttons!") Just in passing: the "public" / "private" distinction I've been talking about isn't about private land, but rather whether a setting is behind closed doors. I've been seeing what seems like confusion about that.

Right, to recap (maybe for my own benefit) that's what Scylla and I are both trying to "solve" with some revision to those rules as written. She suggested (as I understood it) that M would change to forbid public nudity. I suggested instead that properly dressed child avatars could be in the presence of public nudity as long as there was no shared activity. Then (I think) both proposals got wedged on the prospect of those child avatars encountering sudden private nudity. At the moment, I'm not seeing a clear path to not sending the child avatar abruptly away from that scene.

Right. But I'm trying to understand what happens under those circumstances if, instead, public nudity were forbidden on M-rated land. Wouldn't a dance club be private, so that could still happen? (It's very possible I've misunderstood the proposal.)

My hunch would be it's in the glTF scene stuff. But that may just be paranoia.

I can't imagine the Lab actually forbidding public nudity on M-rated land. It was a big deal back in 2007 when they promised not everybody needed to move to Zindra because all "normal" pr0n fantasies could still be played out on M. As it turned out, though, I'm not sure all that much public nudity actually happen on M. Some nude beaches. More like mine where once in a while there's nudity, but is it really important to the business? Probably not. But it would be perceived as very disruptive, and that could be important to the business. I think they need find a way to say that properly clothed child avatars can be in visual proximity of nudity on M-rated land as long as they don't engage or participate in any common activity with a nude avatar. That language is clunky as hell, but something like that. That will require smelling salts for some posters on this thread, but it seems to me the least disruptive step they can take.

/me corners the market on Zindra beachfront while the rest of the thread debates how many demos can dance on the head of a graphic

Now that you mention it, what is the logic when I login requesting to go where I was before but that region is offline? If I was in a G region, do I end up at a G infohub? or is it based on how I set my content maturity preference? Or something else? Presumably this has always done "the right thing" but the stakes for some are kinda higher now. (Sorry, I know this is probably trivial, I just never thought about it before.) Not on the map in the Linden viewer I'm looking at right now. That seems bad. (But since PBR I have a tossed salad of viewers and versions installed so don't take my word for it.) Businesses have to make hard decisions, but repeatedly excluding minorities of customers will kill a business. It's a thing to be avoided as much as possible. Not that the Lab should over-index on child avatars, but they can't vote today's disfavored minority off the island every day and long have a business to run.

That's what occurred to me, too, because "in my proximity" was in the request. ( I'm not so sure about "relatively new" though. )

One thing, though. If you do update each outfit (one way or another), and if you're in the habit of browsing through outfits chronologically in Inventory (sorted most recent first), it is very likely that order will end up scrambled in the process.

It's true I don't like that interpretation because it necessarily relegates a subset of TOS-complying SL residents to second class status on M-rated land—specifically for me, my M-rated land, unless I specify (and, I guess, somehow enforce) a no nudity rule, and then god forbid I someday go skinny-dipping on my own beach. But that wasn't the case I was making. Rather, my point was that well-meaning people can read that TOS and come up with diametrically opposed interpretations. @Vivienne Schell sees it the way you do, and @Codex Alpha sees it clearly the opposite, like nobody could possibly misinterpret it the other way. It's a perfect Necker cube of policy. There needs to be language in the Child Avatar Policy that resolves it.

I rest my case.

Some of us have spent weeks working with lawyers on less ambiguity than this. But the real problem here is that the majority of posters in this thread seem to believe they'd be justified in reporting a child avatar for being in the vicinity of nudity for any extended period of time. So if it's so clear, why do people think that? (There is a reason—think about it—and that reason is why the text must resolve all such ambiguity.)

Exactly. It's the "what are they required to do now?" question that needs to be addressed specifically to disabuse anybody of the idea the child avatar should be AR'd for not fleeing. (Granted, there's also plenty of mushiness around "presence": same parcel? in chat range? in viewing distance?… But that might be left up to Governance discretion as long as there aren't a zillion ARs to process from those mistakenly thinking mere presence is a violation.)

Do you think that's how people read it? You don't think "location" and "presence" makes "participating" include passive proximity? Because I sure think that interpretation will generate a whole lot of ARs.