So what changed in the Terms of Service?

[LittleMe Jewell]

1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

1 hour ago, Starberry Passion said:

It's just a bra

. . . on a "child."

Yes, I know that RL doesn't really matter.  However, part of the experience of playing a child in SL might include "growing up" and for a girl, that might include developing breasts.  In RL, many girls start wearing training bras long before they actually have any breasts - simply because they want to feel like they are growing up.

This is a RL photo, but it does show that a training bra can be created that does not give any emphasis to the breast at all - and, IMO, such should be allowed in SL.

[annathora]

Let's face it, all this comes because some "bored" people have put their hands on their heads when they saw that there is nudism in Second Life and that they also let the avatars of children (but they are adults) to go on those beaches.

 

In some countries and especially in the United States of America is usually seen as an offense and as if it were a sexual act to go naked or to see a naked child (without any sexual qualification) I remember that we were all born naked without a "modesty layer" but considering that it is the country where some consider the sculpture of David de Michelangelo an obscenity, I do not expect much, but Linden Lab is in California, they should know better how it all goes.

While I agree that some things need to change, criminalizing the entire SL Kids community (where there are more good people than bad) is a bad idea, Linden Lab should have created a commission where the Kids community could say what they think, what is good and what is bad and help to create a guide of what is acceptable and what is not, not criminalize nudism just because, without explanations, just for the reactions of some fanatics, when the real problem and what worries Linden lab is another, the a-play that include sex, that needs end , but with fair and real rules, that penalize those people and not the rest.

In my opinion, they have done it very badly and out of fear, I understand it, they want to protect their asses, but they should put the modesty layer there before making nonsense rules.

 

Edited May 2 by annathora

[Coffee Pancake]

1 minute ago, brodiac90 said:

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. 

This interpretation breaks BOM entirely for all child avatars. There could be no BOM clothing at all.

[Arielle Popstar]

14 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

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.   

Well how about the Lab/ Viewer notifies someone if they are entering an adult area? The Lab likes to put the onus on the resident rather lifting a hand themselves to help alleviate that possibility.

[LittleMe Jewell]

1 hour ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

I would hope that the modesty devices SL is talking about are more like a jumper or one piece and not bra and panties. That would defeat the purpose, IMO.

In reality, they should not even be a full bra and panty, but simply a grey area around the breasts and genitals, thereby allowing the child to still wear a swimsuit.

[Rowan Amore]

4 minutes ago, brodiac90 said:

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. 

How does.that make sense?  If I use Maitreya to make a teen avatar, all I need is to use a skin with baked on undies.  If I decide.to be an adult avatar tomorrow, I can change shapes and heads and use an adult skin on that same Maitreya body.

[Coffee Pancake]

4 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

How does.that make sense?  If I use Maitreya to make a teen avatar, all I need is to use a skin with baked on undies.  If I decide.to be an adult avatar tomorrow, I can change shapes and heads and use an adult skin on that same Maitreya body.

You are not allowed to make a child avatar with Maitreya as there is no possibility for a modesty layer that can't be removed.

[Vanity Fair]

3 hours ago, Madi Melodious said:

The modesty requirement is ridiculous if you are wearing cloths or have nothing under the body.  It breaks years of content and makes the investments in people avatars now worth less

And this is EXACTLY why I have now ditched my child avatar. It’s simply not worth the hassle of trying to upgrade an old body/skin. 

[LittleMe Jewell]

19 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

You are not allowed to make a child avatar with Maitreya as there is no possibility for a modesty layer that can't be removed.

Maitreya could put out a body with a baked in modesty layer (adding it to the body package) --- or you could use a skin with a modesty layer.  The FAQ does say "modesty layer which is baked into child avatar skins or bodies".

Edited May 2 by LittleMe Jewell

[annathora]

2 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

Maitreya could put out a body with a baked in modesty layer (adding it to the body package) --- or you could use a skin with a modesty layer.  The FAQ does say "modesty layer which is baked into child avatar skins or bodies".

I will ask Barbie of Matel to change all my Barbies for ones than have modesty layer

[Nika Talaj]

9 minutes ago, brodiac90 said:

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. 

What? This is all LL says about the modesty layer in their "clarifications" page.  I don't see any further description in the FAQ.

Quote

Residents presenting as Child Avatars shall be prohibited from the following: ...

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 ...

Content for Child Avatars being sold inworld and/or on Marketplace must comply with the General Content Rating and adhere to the following:

• Content intended for Child Avatars must be listed as General maturity.
• Content intended for Child Avatars must not be sexual and/or suggestive in nature.
• No Adult or Moderate keywords in Marketplace listings on Child avatar content.
• 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.

I see no requirement that the skin be made by the creator of the body.  Just that a modesty layer be baked into whatever skin a child avatar is using.   As I read this, the modesty layer must be part of the skin, not a separate BOM garment that the avatar could remove to become nude.  Every skin that a child avatar uses must have a modesty layer; if they use a skin that does not, they are not in compliance.

[LittleMe Jewell]

46 minutes ago, Starberry Passion said:

But what happens if a child avatar starts wearing adult skins?

And that is when the child avatar gets in trouble - for violating the TOS

[Vanity Fair]

2 hours 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..... 

My understanding, from reading the current FAQ, is that BoM underwear isn’t enough; the modesty panels need to be baked-in and unremovable on the body/skin. 

[LittleMe Jewell]

45 minutes ago, Starberry Passion said:

who would be letting kids run around, in public in underwear in the first place?

Toddlers (up to around 3-4 yrs old) run around in underwear outside all the time in parts of the US that are very hot & humid.

[NymphAspect]

While we're at it, here's my avi.

[Starberry Passion]

Just now, NymphAspect said:

While we're at it, here's my avi.

Very cute

[Vanity Fair]

2 hours ago, Ayashe Ninetails said:

You have until June 30th to obtain a skin or body (?) with a built-in modesty layer, according to the FAQ.

Depending on the body you use, I imagine that content will get made fairly quickly (we can hope?).

Oh, my sweet summer child… you must be new around here 😉

[Starberry Passion]

I thought that one of them were here to answer questions, did anyone ask them anything yet?

[Vanity Fair]

2 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I'd have thought that LL is not going to bring the ban hammer down hard on violators until they are reasonably sure everyone is aware of the new rule changes.

But you're right -- how long will it take for new skins with baked-on modesty layers to be generally available? Not overnight, for sure.

If you wear BOM underwear, which cannot be simply derendered, I'd think you're pretty safe. Even if a griefer does derender your clothing, you'll not be naked, and so not AR-able.

HOWEVER, that is not what the FAQ *currently* states. It must be baked-on, unremovable, and clearly a different colour from the skin (if I remember correctly). 

[Coffee Pancake]

12 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

How does.that make sense?  If I use Maitreya to make a teen avatar, all I need is to use a skin with baked on undies.  If I decide.to be an adult avatar tomorrow, I can change shapes and heads and use an adult skin on that same Maitreya body.

Actually .. this has just been brought to my attention,

Maitreya (and other adult bodies) have geometry based sexual characteristics. Making a child avatar with that body isn't possible as the body itself violates the rules.

Does this mean that anyone wearing Maitreya could not be considered an child avatar and is therefore .. safe ?

[Madi Melodious]

1 hour ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

We actually do not yet know if either of the internal or external investigations have been completed.

 

ETA: Correction to the above.  In reading LL's blog post more closely:

 

Though the first paragraph mentions multiple investigations and the second paragraph mentions "investigation" (singular).  So, still not fully sure that all internal AND external investigations have been completed.

 

So, basically their own internal investigation found nothing was amiss but they decided to punish an entire genre of thier business anyway?   I ask you simply in what way is that on any level, fair? 

[Ayashe Ninetails]

Just now, Vanity Fair said:

Oh, my sweet summer child… you must be new around here 😉

I'm giving creators the benefit of the doubt here. 😆

Some will likely want to get their stores compliant as quickly as possible seeing as their existing skin lines will be entirely useless in two months.

[Arielle Popstar]

2 minutes ago, Nika Talaj said:

What? This is all LL says about the modesty layer in their "clarifications" page.  I don't see any further description in the FAQ.

I see no requirement that the skin be made by the creator of the body.  Just that a modesty layer be baked into whatever skin a child avatar is using.   As I read this, the modesty layer must be part of the skin, not a separate BOM garment that the avatar could remove to become nude.  Every skin that a child avatar uses must have a modesty layer; if they use a skin that does not, they are not in compliance.

This part:

• 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.

To do that it would need to be the default skin and not have a Bom or applier option

[LittleMe Jewell]

40 minutes ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

46 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.

Yes, I understand that based on the current wording they would not be in compliance.

I was trying to give the opinion that since the gist of it all is that a child avatar should not ever have exposed genitals, then BOM would suffice. 

However, it does appear that LL wants to completely eliminate the option that said BOM underclothes could even be removed.  I get it, but don't necessarily agree that it must be that hard-lined.

Edited May 2 by LittleMe Jewell

[Starberry Passion]

Just now, Coffee Pancake said:

Actually .. this has just been brought to my attention,

Maitreya (and other adult bodies) have geometry based sexual characteristics. Making a child avatar with that body isn't possible as the body itself violates the rules.

Does this mean that anyone wearing Maitreya could not be considered an child avatar and is therefore .. safe ?

the body, itself, does have characters of adult, but not sexual characteristics, because a body isn't sexual until someone sexualizes it. The body is natural.

But I was talking about this before, it has adult features in every aspect of the bodies, Legacy, Maitreya, Kupra, Reborn and others like it.