Hidden private parts in G rated land

[Talligurl]

I recently was exploring an area  that was rated General, I was fully clothed, I thought totally appropriate for the area. I received an IM however from someone I assume  was some sort of administrator, telling me I needed to remove my female part that was hidden under my skirt. Which got me to thinking,  why is this needed if i keep it hidden? Just wondering what others  think,  I know you all sometimes understand things in SL better than I do, and some of you might know a perfectly good reason why keeping that part hidden isn't enough. I am just curious to hear what you think about it.

[Callum Meriman]

Hall Monitors.

They sit in the G-Rated area with Ctrl-Alt-T on and tut-tut each time they see red gender bits.

These are the same people who inspect each item in my club looking for adult poses. AKA, petty little people who want to mould the world to their morals, which includes controlling invisible/inaccessible things.

 

Edit: To make these Hall Monitors worse, there is a whole group of them who will police your groups, and tell you to hide ones they don't approve of.

Edited December 29, 2018 by Callum Meriman

[Love Zhaoying]

Some people have their own rules. The fact they are using “view hidden” / Ctrl-T to look for bits means, they have some drive to self-police things. You wouldn’t want someone to demand to see what bits you have in RL, would you? I think this behavior is a combination of ignorant and rude. 

My guess is, this is socialized from one resident to the next. Obviously, there are no TOS rules that say you can’t wear invisible bits on G regions.

[Syo Emerald]

Those are probably the same people, that do not understand that rezzing takes time or may fail and that you may appear partially naked to them, but wear clothes. And G sims are full of overly concerned and nosy folks. My main reason to stay away from all G sims, that aren't just for shopping.

[Akasha Sternberg]

This is another case of "Where the EFF do you run into people like that?" for me...I´d be out there and never to return. Seriously I´d prolly report them for harassment, too. Being scanned like that can´t be legal, right? To me it feels like attaching a bug to your private phone ...Same level of intrusion of your private space - quite literally XD 

You have to be dressed. We all know even you, my favourite lil cloth-allergic, manage to dress - be DRESSED... bits covered and all - beautifully, too. So you should be good..

 

Don´t waste your time there, there´s so many other pretty sims and sceneries where you´re not harassed like that.

[Love Zhaoying]

Idea: find the relevant TOS and give them a link to it. 

[Kyrah Abattoir]

Step1: Re read the TOS and check that you are complying with it.

Step2: Check that they don't own the parcel you are standing on.

Step3: Tell them to frag off.

Edited December 29, 2018 by Kyrah Abattoir

[Phil Deakins]

For those who didn't quite follow Talligurl's post. Seeing transparent objects (ctrl-alt-t) has nothing to do with it.

Edited December 29, 2018 by Phil Deakins

[Love Zhaoying]

3 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

For those who didn't quite follow Talligurl's post. Seeing transparent objects (ctrl-alt-t) has nothing to do with it.

Ok. So, your opinion? Bits aren’t against TOS for general if covered by clothing, are they?

[Cindy Evanier]

1 hour ago, Talligurl said:

my female part that was hidden under my skirt.

Did you have knickers on?

[Talligurl]

29 minutes ago, Cindy Evanier said:

Did you have knickers on?

No, but then again  I wasn't told I needed to put them on, I actually could understand that better, Having removed the objectionable  part one could still cam up my skirt and see my built in Maitreya parts, in fact what I was  told  to remove was only a slight cosmetic enhancement to what Maitreya provides. I suppose I should be happy he  didn't  boot  me, but maybe he didn't even have that power.

[Ceka Cianci]

Just say,Hey stop looking under my dress ,you filthy pervert!! \o/

What ,do you walk around with mirrors on your shoes in RL.. Just creepy!! \o/ Muted!!

Case closed..

hehehehe

[Phil Deakins]

1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Ok. So, your opinion? Bits aren’t against TOS for general if covered by clothing, are they?

My opinion on this topic is irrelevant.

[Qie Niangao]

I'm no expert on female body parts (in SL as in RL), but SL male bits can be ridiculously rendering-intensive. That probably has nothing to do with the request to remove these... "enhancements", but inasmuch as they aren't being used, it wouldn't be bad to comply anyway.

This, incidentally, is one of the many really good uses I've found for the Folder tab in Catznip's "Quick Preferences", which is emulated in Firestorm's "favorite wearables" (or something like that). I'm less hesitant to remove stuff (including avatar HUDs) if I know restoring it is just a click away. In fact it's easier and quicker than toggling visibility (which I realize isn't what "hidden" means in this thread -- more of that mysterious female anatomy).

[Ren Toxx]

1 hour ago, Talligurl said:

... having removed the objectionable  part one could still cam up my skirt and see my built in Maitreya parts...

That’s odd. I’d check if the person is in fact an admin—would hardly be the first troll posing as one to issue stupid orders—, tho admittedly that’s not always easy.

In case it truly was, one possibility is that these clothing policies are next to impossible to formulate precisely (I’ve seen places that specified, “more than 75% of your <body part> exposed”, which I thought was funny... do they stick a rule to your parts, to measure it?), therefore many settle for cruder but easier-to-formulate ones like “no attached parts”—which, of course, in some practical cases may result in seemingly absurd admin decisions, as in your case where naughty parts were still visible—. So it depends on whether the place admins are allowed broader judgement calls (which can have their own problems, like the typical “but your rules don’t specify this exactly!”) or not.

Then again it could be just an overzealous, inexperienced or otherwise plainly mistaken admin.

Edited December 29, 2018 by Ren Toxx

[Bree Giffen]

You can ask if it is acceptable behavior for all residents in their G-rated sim to peek under people's skirts and inspect private parts. If the self-appointed 'admin' who considers themselves to be the person that defines sim behavior can do it then everyone can. 

Edited December 29, 2018 by Bree Giffen

[Garnet Psaltery]

2 hours ago, Talligurl said:

No, but then again  I wasn't told I needed to put them on, I actually could understand that better, Having removed the objectionable  part one could still cam up my skirt and see my built in Maitreya parts, in fact what I was  told  to remove was only a slight cosmetic enhancement to what Maitreya provides. I suppose I should be happy he  didn't  boot  me, but maybe he didn't even have that power.

Just guessing but perhaps the concern was that your attachment could be seen if you sat down or were animated in such a way as to expose it.  I booted someone the other day who allowed her undressed nethers to be exposed in this way.  It's a little disingenuous of you to complain when you weren't actually covered up.

[Theresa Tennyson]

19 minutes ago, Garnet Psaltery said:

Just guessing but perhaps the concern was that your attachment could be seen if you sat down or were animated in such a way as to expose it.  I booted someone the other day who allowed her undressed nethers to be exposed in this way.  It's a little disingenuous of you to complain when you weren't actually covered up.

Also most attachments like that are scripted as well, which may have been what "revealed" it rather than the attendant actually upskirting you. Not to mention what most of the scripts do, which is hardly G-rated.

[Talligurl]

1 hour ago, Garnet Psaltery said:

when you weren't actually covered up.

If more cover up is wanted why didn't the ask for that?

45 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

most attachments like that are scripted as well

No scripts, it is merely cosmetic

[Garnet Psaltery]

1 minute ago, Talligurl said:

If more cover up is wanted why didn't the ask for that?

No scripts, it is merely cosmetic

Why should they ask when it's a General-rated region?

[Talligurl]

Just now, Garnet Psaltery said:

Why should they ask when it's a General-rated region?

but they did ask me something,  they asked me to remove the attachment,  but once I removed it the parts that came with the body were just as visible,  so if the possibility of that area being exposed was the concern,  wouldn't  it have been more useful  to ask   me to add additional clothing to cover up? Now mind you I complied with the request, they did not  seem to have any issue with me walking around in a  skirt with no panties.

 

[Selene Gregoire]

There's a reason I avoid G rated sims. While I don't dress even remotely provocatively or own any "additional bits", there are those admins/mods that are way too prudishly anual retentive for me. They tend to nitpick over every little thing which makes for a very unpleasant environment. 

 

 

Edited December 29, 2018 by Selene Gregoire
oops I seem to have hit the naughty filter

[LittleMe Jewell]

35 minutes ago, Talligurl said:

but they did ask me something,  they asked me to remove the attachment,  but once I removed it the parts that came with the body were just as visible,  so if the possibility of that area being exposed was the concern,  wouldn't  it have been more useful  to ask   me to add additional clothing to cover up? Now mind you I complied with the request, they did not  seem to have any issue with me walking around in a  skirt with no panties.

 

That is the part that is confusing.  My guess is that the person is just an a--hole and has issues with add-on bits.

Edited December 29, 2018 by LittleMe Jewell

[Talligurl]

36 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

That is the part that is confusing.  My guess is that the person is just an a--hole and has issues with add-on bits.

Probably, considering he told  me to remove it or TP  out,  probably meant he didn't  actually have any power to  do anything if I refused to comply.

[Cindy Evanier]

5 minutes ago, Talligurl said:

Probably, considering he told  me to remove it or TP  out,  probably meant he didn't  actually have any power to  do anything if I refused to comply.

maybe your attachment was obscuring his view of the urm natural?  bits  and that was his special thing