Scylla Rhiadra Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Starberry Passion said: it's not sexual, it's not dangerous Personally, I agree. But then I think adult women should be allowed to be topless in public (which, where I live, they are, actually). But to suggest that there are not people who wouldn't find this "sexual," or perhaps even arousing, is naive. ETA: And to underline what Lil said, above, one of the stipulations in the new rules is that anything that makes "the focal point of the body" for a child "the breasts, pelvis, or buttocks" is forbidden. AGAIN -- would I personally freak out about this? No. But I'm not the one judging the ARs. Edited May 2 by Scylla Rhiadra 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleMe Jewell Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Cristiano Midnight said: 14 minutes ago, Madi Melodious said: Being fully nude. Child avatar content creators are required to add a modesty layer which is baked into child avatar skins or bodies, is not transparent, does not match the skin tone, and may not be removed. This part Cris. That modesty layer requirement. It is unclear if that applies to existing content or future sales (and is directed at creators), but I would imagine that given the fact that your body is alphaed, it would not be an issue. The FAQ does pretty much address this: Though I still think that they should be able to use old avatars with BOM layers and/or alpha area. I'm assuming that by forcing child avatars to have modesty layers, LL removes any doubt of whether or not said child avatar removed BOM layers to show genitals. Edited May 2 by LittleMe Jewell 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madi Melodious Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 2 minutes ago, Cristiano Midnight said: Maybe clarification can be given on this issue. Also, unless you are running around naked, how would one even know if the modesty layer was there or not? Agree. Looking at the changes, I could live with most of them, I might grumble about them privately but I can live with them. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brodiac90 Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 1 hour ago, Madi Melodious said: Thank you for this statement but I want you to know this one policy change will basically cost many of your residents years of work and thousands of dollars to comply with it. Some of us are not sure why we should bother any more. There are a great many child avatars at this time are down grading their accounts. We understand you are trying to do the right thing but this time you are punishing a lot of us for basically no reason at all. My yearly premium is up this month. I doubt I will be renewing. 4 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaser Zaks Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 (edited) 4 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said: The FAQ does pretty much address this: Though I still think that they should be able to use old avatars with BOM layers and/or alpha area. I'm assuming that by forcing child avatars to have modesty layers, LL removes any doubt of whether or not said child avatar removed BOM layers to show genitals. This part confused me. The "Can I still use that since I purchased it already" comes off as vague because the response that says "Child avatars will be prohibited from being fully nude". Which makes me wonder if it would be better worded as one of these two questions: 1. "I already have a child avatar that does not have a built in modesty layer. Can I still use it *nude* since I purchased it already?" 2. "I already have a child avatar that does not have a built in modesty layer. Can I still use it *clothed* since I purchased it already?" The current wording is vague for me, so I think they meant #1, but it can be read as #2 instead. Edited May 2 by Chaser Zaks 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starberry Passion Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said: Personally, I agree. But then I think adult women should be allowed to be topless in public (which, where I live, they are, actually). But to suggest that there are not people who wouldn't find this "sexual," or perhaps even arousing, is naive. That's silly my neice cannot wear a tank top, even if it's hot outside, because someone would think it's sexual. Everything is sexual these days. The good thing is, the girl in second life, she's not real so I doubt it would matter who think it's sexy or not if she wears one for her avatar. Edited May 2 by Starberry Passion 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: Hopefully creators can come up with a way to keep the modesty layer there no matter what skin is used otherwise it's going to make shopping for skins a nightmare. It's hard enough finding decent clothes as it is. This does bring up the issue of clothing that comes with 'auto-alpha' in it. If you are wearing a child body & skin that have the modesty layer, but add clothing that then does an alpha to your nether-regions, are you still in compliance? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kylie Jaxxon Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 24 minutes ago, Madi Melodious said: I have a very expensive body for SL, AVIL. The skins are very expensive as are the cloths. I've had the body for over 6 years. The creator left SL last year and didn't share any way to update the body. I spend close to 100 USD on the body alone. And as I've said in other posts, I can comply with the spirt but not the letter. I'm perfectly happy to comply with the spirit if that would be allowed. I'm saying this nicely, but if you've gotten 6 years use out of it, you've got your monies worth, time to update 5 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starberry Passion Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 A bra by itself is not sexual, and a person is not sexual, won't stop people from finding it sexy, yes but you can say that for everything. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleMe Jewell Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 4 minutes ago, Chaser Zaks said: This part confused me. The "Can I still use that since I purchased it already" comes off as vague because the response that says "Child avatars will be prohibited from being fully nude". Which makes me wonder if it would be better worded as one of these two questions: 1. "I already have a child avatar that does not have a built in modesty layer. Can I still use it *nude* since I purchased it already?" 2. "I already have a child avatar that does not have a built in modesty layer. Can I still use it *clothed* since I purchased it already?" The current wording is vague for me, so I think they meant #1, but it can be read as #2 instead. It does need to be better stated. I get the impression they are wanting to ensure that any child avatar does not ever appear nude even if clothing is de-rendered. However, if that is the main gist of it, then as long as a child avatar always wore BOM underwear, they would be in compliance. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innula Zenovka Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 14 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said: This is not sufficient. Please define where the line is. One reasonable person is another's raving lunatic. The punishment for not knowing where governance draw the line is an all accounts perma ban. This is worse than secret ratings for marketplace words. If someone gets that wrong they don't lose everything. Are babyfurs and furry cubs child avatars ? They are not "children". Are anime avatars automatically children? Are anime avatars in sailor fuku automatically children? How does this affect the ABDL community? (who are, buy definition, adults) Though any doubt about whether or not babyfurs, furry cubs or anime avatars are child avatars or not is only going to be an issue in very particular circumstances. If people avoid Adult regions while wearing particular avatars, and avoid a particular range of activities on any regions (or at least avoid these activities in public) then they don't need to worry. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmeliaJ08 Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Nika Talaj said: I don't understand. AVI(L) bodies are mesh, and all the clothes I see on marketplace for it are mesh. Many are old fitmesh clothes. So, if you bought a new body, particularly one with a good alpha hud, wouldn't most of your mesh clothes work with it? I get that you don't WANT to change bodies, but ... couldn't doing so work? Or were AVI(L) bodies and clothes rigged very oddly? AVI(L) clothes are rigged for AVI(L), as far as I know there is no compatibility with any other body? The problem this user has is they specifically cannot comply with the rules as stated (from what I can understand, there is confusion over this rule - does it only apply if a child avatar wishes to appear completely nude?). The body uses a non-standard UV apparently so new skins cannot be created, the creator is no longer in SL so the body cannot be updated with any sort of built in solution... I think this user is right, I don't see how this could be made rules compliant - as per my current understanding - and as a result this person cannot use the body any more... but of course that all hinges on further clarification of the rule since reading it twice now I still can't quite work it out. Edited May 2 by AmeliaJ08 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathlen Onyx Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 1 minute ago, Starberry Passion said: A bra by itself is not sexual, and a person is not sexual, won't stop people from finding it sexy, yes but you can say that for everything. The issue I have is the way it's marketed not the shirt itself except for the shading emphasizing the breast. Child avatars should not be running around SL with a top that is labeled a bra. Change the name to "crop top" and removed the breast enhancement and it's fine. Yes it's perfectly normal for a teen to wear a bra but it's not normal for a 9 year old. (don't say some 9 year old's develop early. I know this) Yes, some teens run around in a training bra in RL. I'd never allow my child to do so but to each their own. There are also teens that wear thongs that show above the pant's or shorts. Again, not something a child avatar should be wearing in SL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathlen Onyx Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 6 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said: However, if that is the main gist of it, then as long as a child avatar always wore BOM underwear, they would be in compliance. It's says that the BOM cannot be removeable so they would not be in compliance. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffee Pancake Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 Quote Q: I already have a child avatar that does not have a built in modesty layer. Can I still use that since I purchased it already? A: No. Going forward, child avatars will be prohibited from being fully nude. All existing child avatars are in violation. Every single one of them. BOM is not sufficient. They ALL will have content that will open them up to abuse reports if used by mistake (as part of an existing outfit) or they do not see or understand the new rules. Only a tiny fraction of this content will get updates. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 5 minutes ago, AmeliaJ08 said: AVI(L) clothes are rigged for AVI(L), as far as I know there is no compatibility with any other body? The problem this user has is they specifically cannot comply with the rules as stated. The body uses a non-standard UV apparently so new skins cannot be created, the creator is no longer in SL so the body cannot be updated with any sort of built in solution... I think this user is right, I don't see how this could be made rules compliant and as a result this person cannot use the body any more. Is the AVI(L) body specifically for non-adults? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cristiano Midnight Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 15 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said: The FAQ does pretty much address this: Though I still think that they should be able to use old avatars with BOM layers and/or alpha area. I'm assuming that by forcing child avatars to have modesty layers, LL removes any doubt of whether or not said child avatar removed BOM layers to show genitals. The thing is though, even in that answer, it does not address this question. If the child avatar is not naked, and is fully covered, does it matter that there is no modesty layer on an alphaed out part of a body? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayashe Ninetails Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 4 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said: It does need to be better stated. I get the impression they are wanting to ensure that any child avatar does not ever appear nude even if clothing is de-rendered. However, if that is the main gist of it, then as long as a child avatar always wore BOM underwear, they would be in compliance. From my understanding of it, it looks as if they don't want child avatar users to be in charge of whether or not their body is sufficiently modest. By saying the skin or body itself needs a baked-on, unremovable outfit of some sort, I don't think they'd accept someone running around with a normal skin + a BOM swimsuit under their clothes. That's a shame if whole avatars will be lost to this as a result if they aren't able to be made compliant. 6 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleMe Jewell Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 1 hour ago, Kathlen Onyx said: I assume LL will be combing the MP for adult items that are relevant only to child avatars and cleaning it up? Not just applying the rules moving foreword? Yeah, right -- just like they pro-actively monitor the MP for other rule infractions. 3 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 1 minute ago, LittleMe Jewell said: Yeah, right -- just like they pro-actively monitor the MP for other rule infractions. Yep, there's a whole lot for that AVI(L) avatar that is questionable if the avatar is intended for children. Strippable bikini? Oh hell no. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmeliaJ08 Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said: Is the AVI(L) body specifically for non-adults? That's a good question, not as far as I know but certainly I don't think I've seen anyone presenting as an adult using it. That said given the rules I don't really think it matters, realistically many avatars that are not intended to be used as child avatars are capable especially when we're in that grey area. Edited May 2 by AmeliaJ08 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathlen Onyx Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 1 minute ago, Cristiano Midnight said: The thing is though, even in that answer, it does not address this question. If the child avatar is not naked, and is fully covered, does it matter that there is no modesty layer on an alphaed out part of a body? Not sure how much clearer they can be. All child avatars must wear a skin that has a modesty layer that cannot be removed. Using an alpha has no bearing on the rule. 1 minute ago, LittleMe Jewell said: Yeah, right -- just like they pro-actively monitor the MP for other rule infractions. Well I assumed they wouldn't but I thought I'd throw it out there. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanity Fair Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 2 hours ago, Keira Linden said: Hi 👋 I'll be answering questions as I can here in the thread or adding to the FAQ I’m glad to see someone from Linden Lab here in this thread, and that they are actively updating the FAQ. I think the one change that is probably going to cause the biggest uproar among content creators and child role players is the new rule that child (or child-like) avatars now must have a baked-on modesty layer on their body’s skin. Store owners have two months to make changes. However, I don’t see ToddleeDoo (for example) bothering to update any older versions of their body skins, and there are probably going to be a lot of SL users that remain ignorant of these changes, and still using older versions of child bodies and skins that (according to the FAQ, I just checked) will be in violation of the policy. I have an alt with a ToddleeDoo Kid head and body, which I pull out maybe once or twice a year (I used to use it more often, and in fact I had made arrangements to leave that avatar to someone else in my will). The last time I signed her in was to pick up the free LeLutka Noel head last December. I’m glad I had the foresight to do that, because I’ve decided today that, rather than try and update the skin on that ToddleeDoo body (which is many years old and probably no longer even supported by the store), I’m just gonna ditch the child avatar completely, and make her an adult. In fact, I just did that before signing on to read this thread! No more child avatars for me. I suspect that many people who have little-used child and teen avatars are going to decide to do the same. It’s simply not worth the risk of having that account banned if you are AR-ed for not meeting these new body and skin requirements. i want to make it clear that I agree wholeheartedly with banning child avatars from Adult regions and from places like nude beaches, as well as all the other changes announced today. I’m also somewhat in favour of the baked-on modesty panel idea for child bodies and skins, but it’s going to be a hard sell in certain quarters, I fear. Fun fact: there were running battles for YEARS between content creators and management over at Sansar because ALL skins (even adult ones) had to have baked-on modesty panels! Of course, nobody really cares anymore, because Sansar is limping along on life support, but I wanted to remind everybody that we here in SL should not be complacent about our nudity (and sexual) freedoms! All it would take is a single change of ownership, and all that could change. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmeliaJ08 Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 5 minutes ago, Ayashe Ninetails said: From my understanding of it, it looks as if they don't want child avatar users to be in charge of whether or not their body is sufficiently modest. By saying the skin or body itself needs a baked-on, unremovable outfit of some sort, I don't think they'd accept someone running around with a normal skin + a BOM swimsuit under their clothes. That's a shame if whole avatars will be lost to this as a result if they aren't able to be made compliant. Yeah I definitely think this is the intent. While BOM would provide modesty cover and cannot be de-rendered so could be considered baked - since this is how BOM works - the intent seems to be to remove the option from the user. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brodiac90 Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 1 minute ago, Kathlen Onyx said: Not sure how much clearer they can be. All child avatars must wear a skin that has a modesty layer that cannot be removed. Using an alpha has no bearing on the rule. Well I assumed they wouldn't but I thought I'd throw it out there. It goes further than that. The skin must be made by the creator of the body and be locked in so there is never an option to be removed. The body must never be able to be nude. If you buy other skins with the modesty layer but the body is still capable of wearing a skin without the layer then you're not compliant. 3 3 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts