Persephone Emerald Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 30 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said: But realistically, an actual girl would be wearing that under a shirt. Maybe not if she's playing in her yard in the summer. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindens Keira Linden Posted May 2 Lindens Share Posted May 2 26 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said: That's a really interesting point, and one that LL could do well to clarify. ETA: Oh frick, I forgot that we're not supposed to tag Lindens. That's actually mentioned in the FAQ. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cristiano Midnight Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 5 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said: It is, to say the least, an overstatement. And I agree that this isn't really a slippery slope at all; on the contrary, by clarifying the rules, it's a good deal less treacherous to navigate than it once was. BUT I also understand, and empathize, with those who are upset about this. Unfortunately, we all knew something like this was coming: the consolation is that it could have been much much worse. I already changed a thread title on my forums that said "Linden Lab bans child avatars". The clarification does seem surprisingly measured. I figured they would be much more sweeping in an effort to appear to be doing something. I have no stake in any of this (as I am just an adult who does not wear pants), but I sympathize with those who feel targeted by these changes. Still, all in all, they seem fair. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Rhiadra Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 1 minute ago, Keira Linden said: That's actually mentioned in the FAQ. Yes, thanks Keira! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Starberry Passion said: People do get really deep into protecting fictional beings, but you have to understand that child avatars, even though they are played by adults most of the time, look like little kids. Not always, some look like adults on a toddle doo but the thing is is that it is a community thing as a whole, that doesn't want sexual under-***** so Linden is complying to that and trying to make them happy. Some people will say it's illegal, which it would be if the avatar was indistinguishable from an actual child, which could happen and people are worried about that. The closer to an actual child you look the more it is boarding on actual C.P. if someone were to start using it for sexual purposes. With Avatars and people fixated on making their avatars more realistic, according to them, you can see this happening can't you? Mostly it is only in the forums I see people with angst as it regards -18 presenting avatars. In world I don't see or hear it so much. Considering many in past have said that the forumites do not really represent the inworld residents that well, policies should not so much reflect what the forum residents want or think they want. Edited May 2 by Arielle Popstar 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BilliJo Aldrin Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 44 minutes ago, Kathlen Onyx said: You could ban them before. I have always banned child avatars from my place. And no I won't AR them, I can't be bothered. Once i kick them to the curb, they are someone elses problem 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chic Aeon Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 I didn't read all of this but if it hasn't been mentioned, the TOS that we were asked to "sign again" still has the 2017 date on it (or did this morning anyway). Now the TOS INCLUDES all those other documents that are linked and that you are suppose to read. My guess is --- and it would have been good of them to TELL US -- is that the only thing that changed was the child avatar document which DOES have today's date. Note date at the bottom. WOULD BE GOOD TO KNOW THAT!!!! 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 22 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said: I don't see anything wrong with these pictures. What is the problem you see here? The training bra is mostly ok aside from being called a bra. The subtle wrinkles under the breast though could be considered emphasizing that area which won't be allowed. Just as any hint at anything down below, male or female, will be against the rules. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Persephone Emerald Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 I can see I'm gonna be on this thread all day long. Good thing I have something to do while I've been waiting 6 hours for a meeting in RL. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madi Melodious Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 4 minutes ago, Cristiano Midnight said: . Still, all in all, they seem fair. What about all the time and money we have put in to our avatars. The creator of my body has left SL. There is no way we can update from that. It could be hundreds or thousands of dollars i'm out of. My body even has a simple way to comply with the spirit of the changes but not the letter. 6 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleMe Jewell Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Fraser Lisle said: There's nothing we can use to define seventeen Vs eighteen so here we have an adult avi that is highly likely to be victim of rules that are not supposed to apply to them. In truth, the adult is not likely to get into any trouble. The problem is that someone playing a 15-17 yr old teen, can simply claim that they are actually an adult if anyone questions anything they do. There is no way to fully prove whether an avatar that looks to be late teens is truly 15 or 18 - and thus that leaves the grey area for someone to possibly abuse. Edited May 2 by LittleMe Jewell 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fraser Lisle Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 (edited) To complicate matters further: Rebirth Body. Is it child or adult? It certainly markets itself as a universal body and the difference is a click of a switch in the HUD. Note that content is shared between the modes and the actual switch merely changes the chest 'mode' from flat to petite to larger breasts. It is not labeled as "child" and "adult" as far as I know yet marketing imagery would suggest this is the intention... yet an adult can of course be small or flat breasted. This is the kind of thing this policy does nothing to clarify and only endagers users who may not have the same perception or intent as any other user or administrator. Edited May 2 by Fraser Lisle 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleMe Jewell Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 2 minutes ago, Madi Melodious said: What about all the time and money we have put in to our avatars. The creator of my body has left SL. There is no way we can update from that. It could be hundreds or thousands of dollars i'm out of. My body even has a simple way to comply with the spirit of the changes but not the letter. Are skins still made for your body? The policy mentions the modesty layer being on skins or bodies. You would be in compliance with a skin that has a modesty layer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sid Nagy Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 30 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said: When I ban a child avatar from my clubhouse on Zindra, can i set them on fire first? Simply hire @Madelaine McMasters 3 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starberry Passion Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 1 minute ago, Arielle Popstar said: Mostly it is only in the forums I see people with angst as it regards -18 presenting avatars. In world I don't see or hear it so much. Considering many in past have said that the forumites do not really represent the inworld residents that well, policies should not so much reflect what the forum residents want or think they want. I don't hear it much, either, in world, so I understand what you're sayin. People can become heavily parasocial in a lot of things, including their avatar. They get so connected to it, so much, that they make it into a real thing and are unable to tell a difference between such, even if there are several differences. Not to mention, people who think they are their avatars and become attached to it, can and will fall in love with someone else's avatar. While both of those things are a thing, they will see a 3D avatar as an actual child, and if that avatar looks too identicle too a real child, then people will try to protect that child avatar, because it's a child to them. I understand that many people, in secondlife are fictosexual, if they see or hear about a child avatar getting things done to them only adults can do, they get angry and upset because, in their eyes it's a child. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cristiano Midnight Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 5 minutes ago, Madi Melodious said: What about all the time and money we have put in to our avatars. The creator of my body has left SL. There is no way we can update from that. It could be hundreds or thousands of dollars i'm out of. My body even has a simple way to comply with the spirit of the changes but not the letter. Elaborate on what you mean - that seems rather extreme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madi Melodious Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 Just now, LittleMe Jewell said: Are skins still made for your body? The policy mentions the modesty layer being on skins or bodies. You would be in compliance with a skin that has a modesty layer. No, they are not. The creator wouldn't share that secret with anyone and has left SL for some reason or another. The private regions of the body are completely debatable, not just alphaed out but completely gone. So I can in essence comply with the spirit of the new tos but not the letter. for the record I could live with complying with the spirt. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleMe Jewell Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 1 hour ago, brodiac90 said: The adult land thing never bothered me honestly as I never went to A land anyway. Currently though my avatar is broken until the creator can come out with an update. I don't go around without clothing anyway, but there's nothing stopping people derending my clothes..... does BOM underwear count as a modesty layer until things can be updated? I'd hate to get banned because other people want to be sickos..... Since BOM cannot be de-rendered, I think it most definitely should count. Though, per the FAQ, they are giving the creators until the end of June to get the updates out with the modesty layer. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindens Lettie Linden Posted May 2 Lindens Share Posted May 2 4 minutes ago, Chic Aeon said: I didn't read all of this but if it hasn't been mentioned, the TOS that we were asked to "sign again" still has the 2017 date on it (or did this morning anyway). Now the TOS INCLUDES all those other documents that are linked and that you are suppose to read. My guess is --- and it would have been good of them to TELL US -- is that the only thing that changed was the child avatar document which DOES have today's date. In the middle of the ToS screen is today's date - close to the changes that were made 3 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BilliJo Aldrin Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 (edited) 24 minutes ago, SynergyOne said: No it was outright inflammatory (no pun intended) and offensive on purpose. I have an ancient griefer hud. One of the options is to set people on fire. Its amusing but harmless, they don't actually burn up. (No avatars are harmed during the immolation) Now that I think about it, I'd probably orbit them rather than set them on fire 😂 orrrr i could set them on fire, then orbit them, they would be like a flaming meteor flying through the sky Edited May 2 by BilliJo Aldrin added a line 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Persephone Emerald Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 37 minutes ago, Kathlen Onyx said: See now I kinda feel for those that have child avatars that don't comply. I'd almost go as far as to say there should be some sort of compensation to replace at least the skin item in order to be compliant. Maybe a LL created skin? Just thinking outloud here. People could use a modesty skin from one of the old starter avatars. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Rhiadra Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 11 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said: Maybe not if she's playing in her yard in the summer. Sure. But the problem with finding RL analogues for these things is that this isn't RL, it's SL. In RL, children generally bathe naked. Well, not anymore in SL. In RL, a child might well be asleep in the room next to that in which her parents are having sex. Definitely not in SL. It's not hard to come up with RL scenarios for nearly anything regarding children and nudity and/or sexuality that are quite innocent. "My infant daughter emerged from her bath and came into the hallway still wet and naked while I was talking to a neighbour at the front door!" Could happen!!! But not in SL. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cristiano Midnight Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 2 minutes ago, Madi Melodious said: No, they are not. The creator wouldn't share that secret with anyone and has left SL for some reason or another. The private regions of the body are completely debatable, not just alphaed out but completely gone. So I can in essence comply with the spirit of the new tos but not the letter. for the record I could live with complying with the spirt. If it is alpha ed out altogether, why would it be an issue? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 9 minutes ago, Chic Aeon said: I didn't read all of this but if it hasn't been mentioned, the TOS that we were asked to "sign again" still has the 2017 date on it (or did this morning anyway). Now the TOS INCLUDES all those other documents that are linked and that you are suppose to read. My guess is --- and it would have been good of them to TELL US -- is that the only thing that changed was the child avatar document which DOES have today's date. Note date at the bottom. WOULD BE GOOD TO KNOW THAT!!!! But under Terms and Conditions, it does have today's date and a.link to the new policy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Persephone Emerald Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 32 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said: Sounds like they will at least be restricted to bodies that have the enforced modesty layer. So maybe Maitreya and others put out 2 versions of the body, one with the layer and one without. I'm not wearing applier skins - on an adult or a child avatar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts