Nudity in G areas

[RobertThorp]

My very first case after law school was defending a guy who had admitted to several acts involving a remote camera in a women's shower area, a peephole into a women's room, and other such things.. And I had to sit next to that pervert. That is only what he admitted to. He was accused, and found not guilty, of other acts that I won't write about here. After he won on those counts, he shook my hand. First thing I did was wash that hand.

So, it does happen in RL

[161488303349]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

vickiadams wrote:

I recently check a couple of G rated dressing rooms with a friend. She went in, staying fully clothed, and I was able to cam in from outside. Then I went in. I could cam in and go in.

---

See 16's commenst above about dressing room set up.  Obviously these were not optimised for privacy.

 

---

vickiadams wrote:

 I heard that some time ago there was a group of "Dressing Rooms in the Sky" or something like that where you went to one place, and when a dressing room was available you were TPed there. One person to a room and too far away for anyone to cam in. But that doesn't seem to exist anymore.

---

I just did a test to double check.  I could Cam to someone on the ground from a 4096 meters in the sky.

Horizontally, I could Cam to somene about 800 meters away (three SIMs over). 

That appears to be according to my test about the limit. 

So "Dressing Room In The Sky" would not really help.

 

---

with parcel visibility then have to be on/over the same parcel to cam into a dressing room. with minimap on you can see them when they do that. like their green dot is in same space as you

so like if the dressing room is 8x8 or 12x12 parcel then they going to be direct on top of you. or below. and stationary. and they going to be using a scripted camera or they have to be able to click on something within their draw distance to manual move their camera

also the default max draw distance in official viewer is 512m. so to get round this then need a TPV that gives longer draw distance than this. or have to mod the viewer xml

is a lot of trouble to go to perv on someone in a proper setup dressing/changing room. and when they do then is not any way they done it by accident somehow

 

[Marybeth Cooperstone]

"Is there any way (such as a "perv alert") to know if someone is watching you when you are in a closed room?"

In Firestorm there is some option that places a cross hair on your face with the name of the avatar that is caming you. I have it on, but I don't remember where to turn it on or off. And I do not have SL on the computer I am using right now so I can't check. I have had a number of people cam me, but most of the time when I was in a group discussion, fully clothed. The people were in sight of me, just getting a better look while I was talking, so no complaints. I once had someone with a male name cam me when I was in a dressing room wearing underwear. So I IMed him with something like "enjoy the view". The camming immediately stopped.

"[undressing in closed dressing rooms] would be considered OK" ... "that acting like RL is OK"

I would consider both to be true. 

I don't have any problem with people caming others that are not in private and that they can see, even if a long distance away. What I do have a problem with is using the "zoom in" feature in Firestorm (I have heard that it is not in the standard LL viewer) that lets you cam someone who is not otherwise visible to you but near enough to be on you radar. Such as when a person standing near a dressing room cams someone in the dressing room.

Marybeth

FLICKR

[Perrie Juran]

---

16 wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

vickiadams wrote:

I recently check a couple of G rated dressing rooms with a friend. She went in, staying fully clothed, and I was able to cam in from outside. Then I went in. I could cam in and go in.

---

See 16's commenst above about dressing room set up.  Obviously these were not optimised for privacy.

 

---

vickiadams wrote:

 I heard that some time ago there was a group of "Dressing Rooms in the Sky" or something like that where you went to one place, and when a dressing room was available you were TPed there. One person to a room and too far away for anyone to cam in. But that doesn't seem to exist anymore.

---

I just did a test to double check.  I could Cam to someone on the ground from a 4096 meters in the sky.

Horizontally, I could Cam to somene about 800 meters away (three SIMs over). 

That appears to be according to my test about the limit. 

So "Dressing Room In The Sky" would not really help.

 

---

with parcel visibility then have to be on/over the same parcel to cam into a dressing room. with minimap on you can see them when they do that. like their green dot is in same space as you

so like if the dressing room is 8x8 or 12x12 parcel then they going to be direct on top of you. or below. and stationary. and they going to be using a scripted camera or they have to be able to click on something within their draw distance to manual move their camera

also the default max draw distance in official viewer is 512m. so to get round this then need a TPV that gives longer draw distance than this. or have to mod the viewer xml

is a lot of trouble to go to perv on someone in a proper setup dressing/changing room. and when they do then is not any way they done it by accident somehow

 

---

Primarily I was referring to the idea of "to far away." 

I was not aware of the 512 meter limit in the official viewer.

One of the single biggest selling points for me when I started using TPV's was command line ability to change my Draw Distance with out having to go to preferences.  This is one of the single most useful functions I know.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Marybeth Cooperstone wrote:

"

Is there any way (such as a "perv alert") to know if someone is watching you when you are in a closed room?

"

In Firestorm there is some option that places a cross hair on your face with the name of the avatar that is caming you. I have it on, but I don't remember where to turn it on or off. And I do not have SL on the computer I am using right now so I can't check.

---

That is not just a Firestorm function.

See this thread for a more detailed discussion. (pops)

[161488303349]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

Primarily I was referring to the idea of "to far away." 

I was not aware of the 512 meter limit in the official viewer.

One of the single biggest selling points for me when I started using TPV's was command line ability to change my Draw Distance with out having to go to preferences.  This is one of the single most useful functions I know.

---

I was just add above so that anyone who maybe reading and wants to make a public dressing room can have some ideas on how to go about it

I just add one more thing. if have got a 12x12 or 8x8 parcel with visibility off and lock doors. then can make a patrol guard that clear the sky above/below the room. like is a tiny alpha prim that deeded to parcel. when click the menu on wall of the room it pass command to the patrol guard. on command then the guard can wizz all the way up to 4095.999m and eject anyone in the parcel space. no warning. silent death

+

yes is true that TPVs got some way better stuff than official viewer

I personal don't care about long long draw distance. mostly bc I am in my own little bubble when login in. and not really pay much attention to what is happening round me. like I not even notice people standing quite close to me in chat range half the time

but is some sim builder people I met for who long long draw distance is really useful to them. so that ok

+

I also really like the minimap in Catznip. the way it draws all the parcel boundaries and can show parcels yellow for sale and red for banlines on it. is pretty good that

only thing I would like more is if it made the red for banlines sticky. like once it detect a banline parcel then it stays red. but even without is pretty good I think when travelling on your vehicle

maybe one day we get that minimap in official viewer. that be good 

 

[Perrie Juran]

---

16 wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

Primarily I was referring to the idea of "to far away." 

I was not aware of the 512 meter limit in the official viewer.

One of the single biggest selling points for me when I started using TPV's was command line ability to change my Draw Distance with out having to go to preferences.  This is one of the single most useful functions I know.

---

I was just add above so that anyone who maybe reading and wants to make a public dressing room can have some ideas on how to go about it

I just add one more thing. if have got a 12x12 or 8x8 parcel with visibility off and lock doors. then can make a patrol guard that clear the sky above/below the room. like is a tiny alpha prim that deeded to parcel. when click the menu on wall of the room it pass command to the patrol guard. on command then the guard can wizz all the way up to 4095.999m and eject anyone in the parcel space. no warning.

silent death

 

---

Silent Death?  And Humans think Martians are dangerous!

 

---

16 wrote:

---

---

I personal don't care about long long draw distance. mostly bc I am in my own little bubble when login in.

 

---

 

Would you have room for a Martian in your Bubble?  :matte-motes-inlove:

[Melita Magic]

There is no 'nudity detector' that I know of. I don't think there should be. Imagine how often the thing would misfire due to lag and other issues.

You're not supposed to ever be nude on G land, so I guess people who live on G land have to wear painted on undies or never remove their undies once they have changed clothes elsewhere on M or A land? Not sure how that works.

But no, a device that detects something without a person having to see (or hear) it happening, would be called spying and that's against LL rules.

[Marybeth Cooperstone]

"You're not supposed to ever be nude on G land, so I guess people who live on G land have to wear painted on undies or never remove their undies once they have changed clothes elsewhere on M or A land? Not sure how that works."

Reading over the Terms of Service (TOS) the only thing I see is information about maturity ratings in the knowledge base, which information is incorporated by reference into the TOS.

"General regions are areas where you should feel free to say and do things that you would be comfortable saying and doing in front of your grandmother or a grade school class."  (Knowledge Base, http://community.secondlife.com/t5/forums/replypage/board-id/GeneralDiscussionForum/message-id/97035, last accessed 3/1/05)

You certainly would not "feel comfortable" appearing nude in front of a grade school class. However, grade schools have restrooms, some designated for men teachers or for women teachers. In a stall in the ladies room, or in the bathroom at your grandmother's house, is certainly an area where you would feel comfortable taking off your clothes.

So I don't think that it is a violation of the TOS to be naked in your own home in a G area (provided that you were not in front of an open window or door or in a specifically designated dressing room or changing room (provided that it is not designated as being for the other gender).

That said, on two occasions pictures of me wearing a bra (one, my avi and one the real me) were removed even though those pictures were less revealing than those commonly found in ads in newspaper and pictures in the lingerie sections of department stores. So one never knows how prudish the Lindens are. But I don't think that there is any problem being naked in a dressing room or your house,

[Melita Magic]

That's what I had heard, which is why I said it. But I haven't read the entire TOS lately. Some of the rules are in hyperlinks within other parts of the TOS text, so reading one section may not include everything on that subject.

I might be confusing it with minors who can only be on G land, not being able to have skins that aren't censored, though.

 

PS avatars don't have to use toilets...or shower...I had to put that in. I am claiming auxiliary redheadness, by the way, although the official redheads have to vote me in. Lol

PPS and the part  you quoted does say "in front of" - you don't shower or use the toilet in front of...well I will let that one alone. Lol

[RobertThorp]

Marybeth,

Since you write laws and regulations for a living, I bet you, like me, have a problem with the words "feel comfortable". Perverts I have known (at one time part of my job), feel comfortable doing things like showing off their privates in front of kids and grandmothers. That is why they are perverts.

Bob

[Marybeth Cooperstone]

Very true Bob. I about chocked on the words "feel comfortable". Taken literally (we lawyers sometimes take things too literally), some perverts could claim that they feel comfortable exposing themselves or worse in front of kids and grandmothers.

Yes, Melita, we don't have to use the toilets or shower in SL. But we do change cloths. I would not feel comfortable pulling off my bathing suit in front of grade school kids or other males, but I think that it would be OK to pull off my bathing suit in a dressing room or other private, closed off area. There is a difference in RL, and should be in SL, between being in public and being in private. I think that if you treat G areas of SL like a normal, non-perverted, person would treat RL, you are OK. In a G area of SL your own house, someone else's house to which you are invited, or a dressing room should be OK for undressing.

While I can, in SL, change underwear by clicking on "wear" and not exposing myself, sometimes when I am making panties I will upload (as temporary so its free) a tga file with just the waist and leg edges to check that they lineup between front and back. Of course, then I use a dressing room or other private area. I see no problem with that.

[Melita Magic]

Well you are talking about what you do in SL Marybeth and what you feel comfortable doing (as Robert said, that varies) but what matters is what LL says, since this is their world. We just (virtually) live in it.

It's possible to change clothes yet have painted on undies or undies that are never removed, as I said before and I think that's what the rules on G land are but now you have me doubting that, as I said, I might have the rule confused with the rule for RL minors who if playing by the rules can only go on G land.

I doubt this thing about whether someone changes clothes on their own G land skybox or in their house is smoething that the staff is spending tons of time out there policing even if it is in the TOS. Some weeks back I had a TOS thread and  had read about this but I've already forgotten it again. The luxury of only owning M land (well okay I do have a small parcel or two on G land but they are not homes or anywhere someone would change.) I used to run a big parcel of G land and would eject people who were running around naked because it was a sim a lot of families i.e. avatar kids came to.

 

[Marybeth Cooperstone]

" I used to run a big parcel of G land and would eject people who were running around naked because it was a sim a lot of families i.e. avatar kids came to."

I agree that anyone in a G area that is naked or exposing their private parts in a way that can be seen by others should be ejected. But I could not find anything in the TOS that said that you could not be naked in a dressing room or private home. If you know of anything, please give me the cite. I may have missed it.

Of course, if you have land in a G area you are free to have a dressing room and post a rule that avatars cannot undress in that dressing room. That would be your prerogative. But why would you have a dressing room and not allow undressing in it?

Even knowing that LL is rather prudish (since, as I mentioned, pictures on this forum of me and of my avi showing a bra were removed), I would still have no problem being undressed in a dressing room or private home in a G area. I don't think the Lindens would have any problem either.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Marybeth Cooperstone wrote:

"

 I used to run a big parcel of G land and would eject people who were running around naked because it was a sim a lot of families i.e. avatar kids came to.

"

I agree that anyone in a G area that is naked or exposing their private parts in a way that can be seen by others should be ejected. But I could not find anything in the TOS that said that you could not be naked in a dressing room or private home. If you know of anything, please give me the cite. I may have missed it.

Of course, if you have land in a G area you are free to have a dressing room and post a rule that avatars cannot undress in that dressing room. That would be your prerogative. But why would you have a dressing room and not allow undressing in it?

Even knowing that LL is rather prudish (since, as I mentioned, pictures on this forum of me and of my avi showing a bra were removed), I would still have no problem being undressed in a dressing room or private home in a G area. I don't think the Lindens would have any problem either.

---

Citation would be a good thing.  Our opinions could be anecdotal, based on the things others have experienced, people stating they were banned from SL  for being naked in a G rated SIM.

[AnnAdams]

Has there ever been someone banned, or otherwise in trouble, by either SL or a property "owner" for being naked in a dressing room or private home in G land in SL?

[161488303349]

---

AnnAdams wrote:

Has there ever been someone banned, or otherwise in trouble, by either SL or a property "owner" for being naked in a dressing room or private home in G land in SL?

---

not that I ever heard

only people I ever heard of getting banned in G were them making spectacles of themselves. mostly run round nekkid with flexis on at Infohubs and Welcome Areas

or deliberate going naked to G parcels, like shops and linden roads and other public spaces. making some kinda obscure statement  about their rights. that they made up for their pixel selfs

other one is upsetting the neighbours. like you lying in your garden in view of the neighbours place getting a overall suntan. just so that you not get any bikini lines on your pixel body obviously apparently

 

[Perrie Juran]

---

AnnAdams wrote:

Has there ever been someone banned, or otherwise in trouble, by either SL or a property "owner" for being naked in a dressing room or private home in G land in SL?

---

that is why i said 'anecdotal' evidence.  

the issue has come up before but i don't have threads book marked and honestly don't feel like digging for them

[SueThryp]

Too me, it seems obvious. The guidelines said not to do anything you would feel uncomfortable doing in front of you grandmother or a grade school class. I feel very comfortable taking off my bathing suit, showing, and getting dressed in a bathroom at my grandmothers house near a beach. I am sure any teacher or administrator would feel very comfortable exposing certain parts while using the appropriate rest room at a school. So I am sure that it is OK to completely undress in a clearly marked dressing room or a private house in a G area, although going outside in public exposed would not be OK.

I agree with one poster who pointed out that certain people (perverts, exhibitionists, etc) feel comfortable doing things most of us would not consider OK in public in a G area.

I think that the TOS and guidelines should be less vague and ambiguous and more explicit.

[Eileen Fellstein]

---

AnnAdams wrote:

In a G rated area is there anything that automatically detects if you are nude - specifically if your "private parts" are uncovered?

I don't run around exposing my self, but I was wondering about such things as changing or trying clothes in a place label G but where you are in a private place such as a changing room or a room occupied only by myself. If enforcement of G is by complaint, there should be no problem because no one else would see you. However, if there was some kind of automatic device it could detect your lack of coverage without knowing that you were really in a private area.

---

OMG I sure hope not. It's bad enough some think there should be people engaged in the colosal waste of time it is for someone to police what a person's cartoon charcter is or isnt wearing. But if you're going to be nude, just go somewhere else. Why help people manufacture a squabble that doesnt need to exist? Let them stay there until they are tired of Mickey Mouse mentality and dcide to come join the rest of the human race.

[RobertThorp]

"I think that the TOS and guidelines should be less vague and ambiguous and more explicit." 

I agree. Vagueness and ambiguity are a serious problem with contracts (including terms of service) and laws. In criminal laws relating to sex crimes they often are the result of legislators who are too prudish to write more explicit language into laws. As a result, accused criminals get off when the laws are to vague to enforce, or to convince juries.

I have not been in criminal defense work for about a decade. But I do write contracts and terms of service (but not for SL or similar things). Marybeth writes laws, and I know that laws she writes have no such ambiguity.

Bob

[161488303349]

I don't think the ToS is vague

is prescriptive on 3 G things:

- cannot provide/have on your parcel content or activity that depict nudity or sexuals

- cannot  have a "sex bed". meaning objects that provide sexuals

- cannot do anything that would shame or embarrass a grandmother or child

the last one not about us personally. like our own take on how we feel about it. we maybe not shamed or embarrassed personal by run round naked. or use bad language.or indulge in impolite behaviours. but they would be

is not about our own grandmother or child either. it mean all grandmothers and children. not just this one or that one or maybe some other one. it means all of them

 

[Eileen Fellstein]

My 4th grandchild is due any day in real life

I am part of 'all' and 'everybody' By that wording, number 3 leaves it wide freakin' open, lol. Yes, dear, that is very, very, VERY vague. Its actually nonsense language that belongs nowhere in any type of guide for anything. It assumes behavior and beliefs based solely on an age range that is not even close to being specified.

[Ceka Cianci]

---

AnnAdams wrote:

Has there ever been someone banned, or otherwise in trouble, by either SL or a property "owner" for being naked in a dressing room or private home in G land in SL?

---

i wouldn't think so..but there may have been some rare cases that it happened..i doubt it is something common..

besides ..you really don't have to be nude if you are just changing clothes..that's if you are using the "wear" option..

the :add: option will just add where the "wear" option will replace the item or layer in that slot..

still if you are just changing and doing everything to not be seen..i doubt they would ban you even if someone reported it..

you would get a warning first i believe and maybe an hour ban or something light..maybe a day or so..

not a perma ban..

 

 

 

 

[Marybeth Cooperstone]

I think that the TOS and incorporated part of the KB are too ambiguous. They should define "private parts" and should expressly say that exposure of private parts in G areas is not allowed and then have an express exception for dressing rooms and other private areas.

Bob is correct in that I do write laws. But they are tax laws, typically for businesses, for states and municipalities that are too small to have their own bill writing staff. The elected legislators decide what they want and I put it into clear and unambiguous language. I have nothing to do with criminal laws but I have heard of criminals getting off because the judge, and sometimes the jury, thought that the law was too vague. I recently talked with a woman state legislator who, with assistance from another lawyer, had to write specific definitions of "private parts" into the law. She was somewhat embarrassed using those terms in public (in a committee) but realized that the law had to be unambiguous. She told me that she knew that her pre-teen son would giggle if he read that law, but she didn't think that pre-teen boys read law books. Same goes with term of service.

In spite of the ambiguity, I do not think that the TOS and incorporated part of the KB are meant to prohibit the exposure of "private parts" in a dressing room or in your own home, even if they are in a G area. I think that even the most prudish of the Lindens would agree with me.

Marybeth

FLICKR