So what changed in the Terms of Service?

[Denim Robonaught]

3 hours ago, Honey Puddles said:

How often do you go shopping, and find yourself in an Adult rated region? Do you even notice when you do?

Remember that the giant hitpiece article went out of it's way to target the maker of the Tweenster body (a child avatar).. because it was located on an A-rated region. One of the better known motorcycle shops (with it's daily midnight mania giveaways) is located on A-rated land.. they even SELL child-sized bikes! A large number of Star Wars roleplay regions are located on A-Rated land. Driver's of SL frequently visits Zindra, and is often sponsored by stores located on A-rated land.

And that's not even getting into clothing stores that just sit on A-rated land because "oh, I dunno, someone might get naked on a pose stand, better mark it A to be safe"

^ THIS ^

[LittleMe Jewell]

2 hours ago, Rowan Amore said:

Well sure, if the neighborhood has a brothel and a crack house.  Around here, we all head out to the porch and sit around to see what's going on because most of us aren't doing anything wrong.

That is how we'd react in my current neighborhood -- all out wanting to see what's up. 

Not so much in a few of the neighborhoods I grew up in.  We didn't have brothels or crack houses on the block, but still, nobody ever wanted to be around if the cops came there.

[LittleMe Jewell]

1 hour ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

If LL thinks that a modesty layer is going to stop the behavior they are mistaken.  Most of my adult activities are done in IM with emoting and cuddling on a couch.

100% ^^

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 minute ago, Denim Robonaught said:

Sometimes i go afk for an hour before i realise where I am

You TP into a place about which you apparently know nothing, and immediately go AFK??????

I'm not sure what to say other than . . . you should probably stop doing that?

I think these new rules -- and especially the one about baked-on underclothing, which I suspect is really unnecessary -- are going to create lots of real inconveniences and hardships among those who use child avatars. And, no, I don't think that's a good thing: I believe there is a large and entirely legitimate community of child RPers who deserve to be allowed to do their thing to the greatest degree possible. There is absolutely no question that there is a*eplay happening in SL, but, as I've said before, I am pretty sure that, by a pretty huge margin, it's mostly happening with avatars that are largely indistinguishable from adult ones.

But, I'm sorry, your example, above, is trivial to an almost ridiculous degree.

[Rathgrith027]

Just now, Scylla Rhiadra said:

You TP into a place about which you apparently know nothing, and immediately go AFK??????

I'm not sure what to say other than . . . you should probably stop doing that?

I think these new rules -- and especially the one about baked-on underclothing, which I suspect is really unnecessary -- are going to create lots of real inconveniences and hardships among those who use child avatars. And, no, I don't think that's a good thing: I believe there is a large and entirely legitimate community of child RPers who deserve to be allowed to do their thing to the greatest degree possible. There is absolutely no question that there is a*eplay happening in SL, but, as I've said before, I am pretty sure that, by a pretty huge margin, it's mostly happening with avatars that are largely indistinguishable from adult ones.

But, I'm sorry, your example, above, is trivial to an almost ridiculous degree.

Yeah uh.. I find this to just be entirely absurd as well. Who just yeets themselves somewhere blindly and goes AFK?

[Coffee Pancake]

11 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

No, when 'may not' is used in the meaning of denial of permission it means the same as can not. So in LL's policy update where it says 'may not' be removed then it also means it 'cannot' be removed. Has to be permanent.

Has to be a permanent part of the skin OR the body. A skin with a modesty layer that can not be removed from the skin would qualify.

My reading is that this is not trying to create a situation where all child avatars can be identified looking at their welded on underpants present at all times under all conditions and clothing.

[Paul Hexem]

2 hours ago, Madi Melodious said:

Would LL be willing to reimburse us for content lost?  Just wondering.

1 hour ago, Jaylinbridges said:

I am only on Page 8 of this topic, and will get thru all the comments when I have time, in days I think.   But this is going to make life difficult for many avatar and clothing designers, trying to satisfy this new "modesty" rule.  Apparently it is retroactive too - so if you bought a teen avatar in the last 15 years, you are probably now illegal if you don't have an opaque  not removable underwear layer on your skin. 

1 hour ago, Denim Robonaught said:

So basically any child avi's 10,000s of L$s worth of skins, and bodies are now completely useless because they can't be censored, unless they bring out special bodies that censor every baked skin. I'd call that punishment for being a child avi.

1 hour ago, Extrude Ragu said:

Putting aside child avs for a moment. I've always thought this way of thinking is really evil. I've known people in my life who have said similar things, and it has always been to justify something really cruel and unfair carried out to somebody who didn't deserve it.

43 minutes ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

I thinks this is a great point. If LL is requiring a modesty layer on a child avi then they should provide one for free like the other senra avatars. 

This is a "welcome to the world" moment for a lot of people, it seems.

We see in RL laws get passed all the time- some of which you probably applaud- that ban personal property and/or entire hobbies from totally innocent people with no recourse or reimbursement. I've had to turn in legally purchased products for destruction, no reimbursement. I've had legally purchased products be made illegal to use, turning them into three thousand dollar paperweights. I've had to make silly and ridiculous modifications to my property, at my own expense.

Welcome to "we live in a society". It could be worse.

[LittleMe Jewell]

37 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

Yay! I reached the end of the thread.

It only took me 10 hours. 😆 

I went away for a few hours and it grew another 5 pages.  Can only imagine where it will be when I wake in the morning, let alone after working all day.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 hour ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

If LL thinks that a modesty layer is going to stop the behavior they are mistaken.  Most of my adult activities are done in IM with emoting and cuddling on a couch.

Yes. How much adult SLex happens on the dance floor of clubs, between fully clothed avis who are supposedly dancing but going at it in IM? An awful lot, I suspect.

So much of this is inevitably about "appearances." LL needs to show that it's "doing something." And it needs to be able to defend itself if an egregious example of a*eplay comes to light publicly, and causes the platform problems.

But IF it is true that they needed to "do something," I think they've at least produced something that is workable.

[Denim Robonaught]

3 hours ago, Honey Puddles said:

Just to point out a couple things.

1. The rule states you have to change avatars BEFORE entering an Adult Region.

2. Apparently, 'right after a teleport' is the absolute worst time to try and get RLV to do anything... much less change your outfit. I'm told your outfit might change on your viewer's side, but due to various 'race conditions' present after a teleport, the region (and those in it) might never get the updates. Resulting in you walking around in your Child Av, without even knowing it.

RLV changes are pretty instant these days

[Ayashe Ninetails]

My guess is the main concern is not what happens in text IMs but the visual depictions of such things. 

Many games prevent avatars and characters from fully undressing, but we all know what happens on that mailbox in front of the Goldshire Inn, even though we won't see much more than a pile of elves sitting/standing on it. 😆

[Ceka Cianci]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Yes. How much adult SLex happens on the dance floor of clubs, between fully clothed avis who are supposedly dancing but going at it in IM? An awful lot, I suspect.

So much of this is inevitably about "appearances." LL needs to show that it's "doing something." And it needs to be able to defend itself if an egregious example of a*eplay comes to light publicly, and causes the platform problems.

But IF it is true that they needed to "do something," I think they've at least produced something that is workable.

Ya, this is most definitely to protect themselves from trouble that may come down the road..

Like most rules and laws in this world and the real, They won't stop everyone. But the responsibility will fall on those not abiding by them, rather than those running the platform.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Just now, Ayashe Ninetails said:

My guess is the main concern is not what happens in text IMs but the visual depictions of such things.

Exactly.

Because appearances.

[Drayke Newall]

12 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

Has to be a permanent part of the skin OR the body. A skin with a modesty layer that can not be removed from the skin would qualify.

My reading is that this is not trying to create a situation where all child avatars can be identified looking at their welded on underpants present at all times under all conditions and clothing.

But therein lies the problem. What is the point of enforcing a ruling that a modesty layer cannot be removed from the skin when you can simply remove it from the skin by wearing another BoM skin or Layer on top that also allows you to add any 'adult' looking parts back on.

I have no concerns that the ruling is for 'identifying' avatars as child or not, but enforcing a rule that can be broken in 1 second by applying something over a skin using BoM is just pointless.

[Ayashe Ninetails]

2 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Exactly.

Because appearances.

Yep, and laws.

[Ceka Cianci]

2 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

But therein lies the problem. What is the point of enforcing a ruling that a modesty layer cannot be removed from the skin when you can simply remove it from the skin by wearing another BoM skin or Layer on top that also allows you to add any 'adult' looking parts back on.

I have no concerns that the ruling is for 'identifying' avatars as child or not, but enforcing a rule that can be broken in 1 second by applying something over a skin using BoM is just pointless.

I would think the point is that, the user of that avatar broke the rules and not the skin maker. Now they just have to not get caught, but if they do it falls on them and not anyone else.

[Denim Robonaught]

2 hours ago, Ineffable Mote said:

Nearly anyone who's been here long enough has had to replace wardrobes over the years, often at no small cost. From system layer to mesh, to mesh bodies. People adjust and adapt, it's just part of the deal.

Why? I still use my  old system layers for BOM, as they became compatible again when BOM was released.

[Paul Hexem]

"But the bad ones will just ignore the new rule(law)" never worked for anything before, why would it work now?

[Ceka Cianci]

1 minute ago, Denim Robonaught said:

Why? I still use my  old system layers for BOM, as they became compatible again when BOM was released.

How much system clothing is still being made though, other than like swim wear and lingerie?

When Bom was released, Applier skins and clothing started to die off. Just as system clothes died off when mesh bodies and applier skins and clothing became  more popular..

It just happens because the majority moves in those directions, which triggers more creators to create more of this  and none or less of that..

 

[Coffee Pancake]

6 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

I have no concerns that the ruling is for 'identifying' avatars as child or not, but enforcing a rule that can be broken in 1 second by applying something over a skin using BoM is just pointless.

It's also pointless to insist that child avatars have painted on stuff that exist under or inside clothing at all times regardless.

The clarification I am more interested in is does this affect furry or non human avatars.

12 minutes ago, Denim Robonaught said:

RLV changes are pretty instant these days

I help work on RLVa as part of the Catznip viewer (that then goes from us to Firestorm and the rest).

They might be "instant" most of the time, but they are not always. Floods of commands , especially when entering a region will likely fail to fully complete. A script to swap out an avatar immediately following a teleport is not a reliable idea.

Heck .. a RLV script to set just your active group to the land group immediately following a teleport is fairly likely to fail without multiple spaced out attempts.

[Drayke Newall]

Just now, Ceka Cianci said:

I would think the point is that, the user of that avatar broke the rules and not the skin maker. Now they just have to not get caught, but if they do it falls on them and not anyone else.

No one has ever blamed the creators for such things - not even the article that started (renewed) all this made such a claim nor has Linden Lab. 

I would imagine the rule is placed as such to try to ensure that the user (or buyer) of said skins cannot do anything untoward with them (or at least make it harder). All of which said rules do not do as said rules can be completely ignored unless the body is not BoM.

[Rathgrith027]

20 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

Ya, this is most definitely to protect themselves from trouble that may come down the road..

Like most rules and laws in this world and the real, They won't stop everyone. But the responsibility will fall on those not abiding by them, rather than those running the platform.

As someone (#NAL) who knows a bit about online service laws, this is usually the case, at least in the US - Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 states that companies are afforded limited liability for the actions of users on their platform. EU regulations have similar provisions, but the law's identifier evades me at the moment - what I recall is, that since Second Life is seen as a 'conduit' for user interaction, at long as the criminal acts fall within the purview of that conduit, they should be exempt from criminal liability within EU member states.

[Denim Robonaught]

1 hour ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

Is it really that hard to just eliminate that type of RP. There are plenty of other RPing opportunities besides that.

Also,  my RL son used to play with himself under the cover at 3 years old. Shall we allow that. I mean it's all innocent behavior for a 3 year old that doesn't understand what it's there for.

 

And then we fall in that good old axiom where decisions are made of which RP is acceptable and which is not.

[Drayke Newall]

2 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

It's also pointless to insist that child avatars have painted on stuff that exist under or inside clothing at all times regardless.

That is my point. The rule means NOTHING. It is a rule that breaks content for no reason what so ever and resolves nothing.

2 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

The clarification I am more interested in is does this affect furry or non human avatars.

I agree. Clarification needs to be made on that, though as per the past 20 years worth (and even current rule changes) of this issue, LL refuse to clarify and define what THEY believe is the baseline for a child avatar.

[Ceka Cianci]

1 minute ago, Drayke Newall said:

No one has ever blamed the creators for such things - not even the article that started (renewed) all this made such a claim nor has Linden Lab. 

I would imagine the rule is placed as such to try to ensure that the user (or buyer) of said skins cannot do anything untoward with them (or at least make it harder). All of which said rules do not do as said rules can be completely ignored unless the body is not BoM.

The rule puts the blame on the user of the avatar and nobody else, is pretty much what I was saying..

The users hand is in the cookie jar with nobody else to blame but themselves..

The skin maker is required to bake in a modesty layer now.. It doesn't matter what went on before the rule changes with skin makers.

It does now and they can get flagged for not baking one in now..