So what changed in the Terms of Service?

[Phil Deakins]

29 minutes ago, Daniel Regenbogen said:

The question is: why should I have to do that?

Because you want to be a child avatar. It's not the world that needs to change because you want to do something. It's you who has to change to fit in with the world.

As to your part about furniture and animation stores, I don't believe there are any stores that include adult animations for children, so you shouldn't have any problems trying out child animations. If you want to try adult animations when you are a child avatar, change. It only a few seconds. In other words, fit in with the world as it is.

 

29 minutes ago, Daniel Regenbogen said:

And wasn't it once "Your world - your imagination"? SL being the place where for example I can be a 14yo landlord which I couldn't be in RL. Creating and selling stuff which I couldn't do in RL.

Yes, that was the slogan at one time, but it never meant that people could live out their imaginations in SL; e.g. age-play was never allowed. Similarly, freedom of speech doesn't include all speech.

Anyway, it's your choice how you live with the new regulations, but don't expect the world to change just for you. You are in a tiny minority. Sometimes tiny minorities can effect change if they shout loud enough, but I don't see that kind of shouting going on here. Also, it wouldn't make any difference anyway.

Edited May 3 by Phil Deakins

[Vanity Fair]

12 hours ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

Please stop posting, I wanna log in to Second Life

I know, right??!? The struggle is real.

[Yorkie Bardeen]

39 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

Why? That does seem to be what the policy says, but how is that sensible? How can they enforce this, unless they propose to assess the images that went into the baking process, much later when some violation is alleged? Unless I'm missing something, this part seems totally impractical.

I think you're all getting lost in the weeds of beard scratching and pontificating about weird edge cases. The perceived problem is/was some SL users using child avatars to engage in banned activities in private. If the bodies just use bom layers while out in public that does nothing to address the behaviour that the TOS change is intended to prevent when those layers can be removed in a private setting. The point is to make that scenario impossible.

As for policing, I don't know. I suppose they could collect a list of UUIDs for all soon-to-be infringing skin assets, and do a check against anyone having them attached, even if it's just to issue a reminder in the first instance. If they're not capable of doing something that simple then idk.

 

[Cristiano Midnight]

13 hours ago, Vanity Fair said:

Well, some wardrobe systems for sale require RLV, right? I could be wrong, since I never use RLV for anything.

Yes, for them to function, they need rlv because they essentially force attachments on and off your avatar.

[Ceka Cianci]

3 minutes ago, Vanity Fair said:

Also, Zooby babies are animesh attachments, and we're talking about avatars in this thread, not attachments.

Although if Linden Lab decides to extend the ban to animesh babies (and even static-object babies), that is gonna open up a whole new can of worms....

FUN FACT: Many years ago, one store on the grid mistakenly set a static prim-object baby to free, so I promptly picked up eight, and attached them to my arms, legs, and other parts of my body to create an impromptu Octomom outfit for Vanity Fair. Aaah, the good old days... 😜 I think I saved that outfit somewhere, if I can find a picture I will share it.

 

Oh, you have to find that picture now!! \o/

hehehe

[Zalificent Corvinus]

17 minutes ago, Daniel Regenbogen said:

Well, then find the evidence first. That would actually follow the most basic rule of judgement: not guilty until proven.

Me "Hi, the owner of this sim doesn't allow child avatars here, can you please switch to an adult avatar, or leave, thanks."

About 10%will leave when approached like that, about 5% will change.

The other 85%?

Them:

"But...But...

...That's so unfair, the ToS says I have a RIGHT to be here!

... I have a place pick used as a fraudulent disclaimer stating that my 10 yr old streetwalker avatar from a badly drawn Japanese comic is over 18 so the rules don't apply to me!

...My 10 yr old streetwalker avatar is based off a badly drwarn JAPANESE comic book, and so the ToS about adult activities simply doesn't apply to me!

... I have paws instead of feet, so the ToS doesn't apply to me!

...MY world MY imagination, so the sim owners rules and/or ToS don't apply to me!

...I'm pwetendin to be thix, so you has to do what I says! Or I'll stamp my wittle feets and sqweem and sqweem and sqweem!

...if you ban me you have to ban [name 1] and [name 2] and [name 3], and [name 4] as that only fair!"

 

My standard response to all of these was give the trash 60 seconds, then if not gone or changed, help them on their way by breaking my foot off in their over-entitled little ass.

 

17 minutes ago, Daniel Regenbogen said:

That would actually follow the most basic rule of judgement: not guilty until proven

Case closed. Guilty as charged.

Edited May 3 by Zalificent Corvinus

[LittleMe Jewell]

16 minutes ago, Vanity Fair said:

Also, Zooby babies are animesh attachments, and we're talking about avatars in this thread, not attachments.

Sort of -- we actually have talked about the various animesh babies at time.  

The whole goal of this crap is to keep appearances clean.  There are plenty of perverts out in RL that have sex with babies, thus I can easily see LL ensuring that the rule of 'modesty layer' also applies to any and all versions/types of babies, as well as the kid avatars.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

53 minutes ago, Starberry Passion said:

I don't think people trying to govern what adults do on adult avatars in an adult sim would help child avatars at all. Some people are trying to push for modesty for adult places, it seems, when it is an adult area on adult land, with adult content.

If you do this, then those enjoying adult life will most likely exit and even more people will quit Second Life. Adults should be able to adult comfortably in adult areas, that's what they were made for. You complaining about adult acts on an adult sim, makes no sense... it's an adult sim

• Mandatory Modesty is General

• Mature - Less Modesty but you still can't go full super saiyan adult.

• Adult sims - No modesty

You want modesty, stay in General you want to be more mature but still have Modesty to where you're not subjected to adulting fully mixed in, Stay in Mature rated sims -

If you go to adult sims, expect adults to be and act like adults.

What kills me is when you go to a club on an adult sim and get told you need to dress, we dont even want to see your exposed mammary glands, oh and dont even think about doing the nasty, dont you have a home you can do that at?

why is a club is on adult land if adult fun isn’t allowed

😂

[Vanity Fair]

12 hours ago, Rathgrith027 said:

Tommy,

I appreciate you providing a statement on behalf of the Governance Team, and also appreciate that you take your job seriously. That being said, I have lost a lot of friends to Governance actions before, and all of them have sworn to me up and down, and their avatars whilst in my presence affirm such - that they never engaged in such violations, relating to AP.

In recent months, there has been an evidenced uptick in ***** reports, and Coffee Pancake, one of the moderators of /r/SecondLife, and one of the developers on Catznip, says that people reporting being banned has skyrocketed, even before these allegations, and these people swear up and down as well that they never intended to violate the rules, let alone have the idea they were engaging in *****.

It's going to take a commitment to fairness and some sort of transparency before I and many others feel comfortable around any Governance agent, and believe me, I have heard that people are honestly afraid. This should not be happening - You and your staff should be seen as people to run to for help, not people to avoid. The only people who should be afraid are the people who know full well they are breaking the rules, and do so evasively or even brazenly, either out of pleasure or blatant disrespect for the social (and legal) contract we as residents sign by joining this platform.

All I ask of you, that many ask of you, is that you at least don't respond to every report with the nuclear option. As I said privately to many friends - a slap on the wrist for the little things, a night (or week) in a jail cell for the bigger ones, and the nukes as a last resort (or when legally obligated). Those who are in a gray area should be taken aside to be forwarned and provided corrective options to ensure future compliance, not out back and shot.

And THIS is why I have decided to switch my ToodleeDoo avatar to an adult one. In my opinion, even before this most recent round of updates to the ToS which we all have to sign off on (whether we read the whole damn thing or not), I would log in as a child avatar and EVEN THOUGH I WAS DOING NOTHING WRONG, I would constantly be asking myself: "Is this place okay? Am I in trouble simply for being in this region?" Simply put, it was no longer enjoyable for me to stroll the grid as a child avatar.

These May 2nd changes were the final straw for me. I give up, and I will no longer have any child avatar. I'm simply choosing not to bother to update her (and I don't even know if I can, since she has a body and skin that are now many years old at this poiint). It's just not worth the hassle to me, when I only logged her in once or twice a year, and lately, I would spend a lot of time feeling that other people are judging me for simply BEING a child avatar. I'm done.

I think that eventually, Linden Lab (or whoever takes over from them if they ever sell SL) will have to make a hard choice between allowing child avatars and allowing adult/sexual content. It's a difficult choice, and I'm really glad I don't have to make it.

Attached are pictures of my child avatar on May 2nd, and what she looks like today (I switched from the ToodleeDoo head and body, which will be banned as of June 30th since I have no plans to update them, to the LeLutka Noel head and Senra Jamie body). I quite like the new look! And it will give me the opportunity to use her whenever I blog about Senra Jamie clothing on my blog. It's a win-win!

However, I really do feel for those people who choose to represent themselves primarily as a child or teen avatar. Even though I 100% agree with Linden Lab's decisions here, I think it's also going to cause some people (like me) to ditch their child avatars completely. Why take the chance to lose your account if somebody AR's you and LL upholds the ban? It's not worth it.

[LittleMe Jewell]

8 hours ago, Paul Hexem said:

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

^^ This

Crooks, by definition, do not care about laws. Similarly, folks that are actually involved in any *****, do not give a crap about the rules.  Hell, there have been rules against it for most of SL's existence, and yet it very likely does still happen.

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

^^ This

Crooks, by definition, do not care about laws. Similarly, folks that are actually involved in any *****, do not give a crap about the rules.  Hell, there have been rules against it for most of SL's existence, and yet it very likely does still happen.

Peeve: When others (not you) use this as a reason that we shouldn't have certain laws / rules at all.

[Arielle Popstar]

55 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

Why? That does seem to be what the policy says, but how is that sensible? How can they enforce this, unless they propose to assess the images that went into the baking process, much later when some violation is alleged? Unless I'm missing something, this part seems totally impractical.

I do see what I think they are trying to get at with the modesty layer. In some ways it can be seen as a protection for younger avatars in that the child haters can't just take a picture of a naked child avatar who has had his/her clothing and underwear derendered and the picture then submitted with an AR. Governance will not have to determine if the child was truly naked or just derendered  by the photographer to appear that way.

This thread as well as some other stories show what lengths some will go to, to implicate younger presenting avatars in compromised situations. These new policies will just redouble efforts by the moral minorities to ban young avatars from this virtual barbie game.

[Love Zhaoying]

Just now, Arielle Popstar said:

I do see what I think they are trying to get at with the modesty layer. In some ways it can be seen as a protection for younger avatars in that the child haters can't just take a picture of a naked child avatar who has had his/her clothing and underwear derendered and the picture then submitted with an AR. Governance will not have to determine if the child was truly naked or just derendered  by the photographer to appear that way.

This thread as well as some other stories show what lengths some will go to, to implicate younger presenting avatars in compromised situations. These new policies will just redouble efforts by the moral minorities to ban young avatars from this virtual barbie game.

This is a good observation!

I was thinking something simple like, "they can't BE 'naked', so there's no way to break the 'no naked child avatar' rule". 

 

[Drayke Newall]

17 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

It's pointless to create a rule that is so easy to break and cannot be enforced. The resources of Governace are severely limited and rely almost exclusively on users to Abuse Report infractions by other residents and creators. 

In the case of what kinds of skins and BOM layers other avatars are wearing, most of us would not care, so most of the ARs are likely to come from those who just want to stir up trouble. These people will flood Governace with reports on users who really aren't doing anything wrong. Governance is then going to have to either hire more people to deal with frivolous reports or continue to ignore most reports, even those which really should be investigated.

What signals a more serious problem to Governace, a report and picture of a child-like avatar engaged in a sex act or a report and picture of a naked child-like avatar just standing somewhere, especially when in the 2nd case their mesh clothing might have just been derendered? And if the avatar is wearing a BOM bathing suit over a naked skin, how is this a problem at all?

The policies would not have changed because of just public child avatars being naked but also to stop what goes on in private of which was the main issue that article was about that caused the review of policies.

As you said (and I have said earlier) it is pointless to create a rule that is so easy to break and cannot be enforced. The problem is that the rule demanding that all child avies have a baked on modesty layer is just that, a rule that is easy to break and cannot be enforced in its current form.

The only way it can be enforced in some feasible manner and not easy to break is to make it so that any child mesh body is not BoM. It is the only way it can be to have that rule stay. By doing that it would reduce the amount of IR's as then you are making it harder for them to abuse the rule in both a private and public place.

You will never be able to completely enforce it as people could just use adult body's shrunk to suit. That just wont happen however, at least LL can tackle the bodies that are made specifically for child rp.

[Ceka Cianci]

13 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Ah, the "good old days" . . .

How I really don't miss them.

You aren'ah kiddin sister. I had to throw out all my member berries because they were taking me too far back.

Back to those pasty flat texture days of yesterdecades ago, where I was Sooo Hawt..  hehehe

omg, I just realize I crossed two decade timelines since I'm been in here!!\o/  There must be some member berries I hid and forgot about. My squirrel senses are tingling. 0.0

Edited May 3 by Ceka Cianci

[Vivienne Schell]

32 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

Ultimately, it really must be the whole avatar appearance that matters… although child avatars won't be able to shop for immodest skins, so that's a thing I guess.

Child avatars on sale come with skins. The now necessary patches, along with the skin,  "may not be removed". "Removed" includes the patches, right? The more I think on the policy changes, the more they make sense to me. Basically, using a Belleza skin on a child avatar is a violation of the ToS now.

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Ceka Cianci said:

You aren'ah kiddin sister. I had to throw out all my member berries because they were taking me too far back.

Back to those pasty flat texture days of yesterdecades ago, where I was Sooo Hawt..  hehehe

omg, I just realize I crossed two decade timelines since I'm been in here!!\o/  There must be some member berries I hid and forgot about. My squirrel senses are tingling. 0.0

Are "member berries" like "dingle berries"?

[Love Zhaoying]

Just realized, I assume the "modesty layer" will have to be "on top" of any skins for it to not be covered! 

I wonder how THAT will work?  I guess it won't, and the user just must not wear any skins that are "naked" skins?

How confusing. (Thought I understood but nupe.)

 

[Ceka Cianci]

5 minutes ago, Vivienne Schell said:

Child avatars on sale come with skins. The now necessary patches, along with the skin,  "may not be removed". "Removed" includes the patches, right? The more I think on the policy changes, the more they make sense to me. Basically, using a Belleza skin on a child avatar is a violation of the ToS now.

Ya, that makes sense.  The creator has to be creating for child avatars, I would think. I can't see us all having perma undies.. I'm sure some may also throw in a skin with baked in modesty layer to cover themselves just in case, even if they aren't creating for child avatars..

It'll be kind of interesting to see if that happens and how much if it does.. hehehe

Edited May 3 by Ceka Cianci

[Daniel Regenbogen]

26 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

Because you want to be a child avatar. It's not the world that needs to change because you want to do something. It's you who has to change to fit in with the world.

As to your part about furniture and animation stores, I don't believe there are any stores that include adult animations for children, so you shouldn't have any problems trying out child animations. If you want to try adult animations when you are a child avatar, change. It only a few seconds. In other words, fit in with the world as it is.

 

There simply is no need to change as long as behaviour is prosecuted and not appearance. And I didn't talk about trying out adult animations, if I would do that it would be a good and real reason for punishment. I was talking about trying out kids animations/furniture and being punished for simply being in the same store that in some other area has adult stuff. Or for being on a region that is rated adult but has no adult stuff on it at all.

[Love Zhaoying]

Just now, Daniel Regenbogen said:

There simply is no need to change as long as behaviour is prosecuted and not appearance.

But "being a naked child avatar" is "appearance".

Edited May 3 by Love Zhaoying

[Arielle Popstar]

Just now, Love Zhaoying said:

Just realized, I assume the "modesty layer" will have to be "on top" of any skins for it to not be covered! 

I wonder how THAT will work?  I guess it won't, and the user just must not wear any skins that are "naked" skins?

How confusing. (Thought I understood but nupe.)

 

I think the idea is that the modesty part is part of the skin, not separate from it. We're calling it a layer but from what the lab is saying, they want it as part of the skin.

[Ceka Cianci]

5 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Are "member berries" like "dingle berries"?

Have a member berry and you'll member what they are. hehehe

[Love Zhaoying]

Just now, Ceka Cianci said:

7 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Are "member berries" like "dingle berries"?

Have a member berry and you'll member what they are. hehehe

Oh! I'm afraid that I'll see wizards and dragons and stuff! 🙂

 

[Zalificent Corvinus]

For all those complaining that the new rule is "un-enforceable", here is a heads up.

 

Un-enforceable rules are very useful catch-alls.

Are the Grid Cops going to do strip searches on all the pint-sized ToS violation avatars? No.

But if they see a possible Pint-sized Tos Violation avatar, and decide they don't like what it's upto or where it is, or the wording in it's very suspicious profile, they can hang it out to dry with the vague un-0enforceable rules, because it's bound to violate some of them if they look hard enough.

 

Un-enforceable Rules - Working As Intended.