So what changed in the Terms of Service?

[Daniel Regenbogen]

1 minute ago, Vivienne Schell said:

Without kids promoting sexual activities or behavior there will be no pedos goin after them. Pretty simple, eh?

Thing is: these new rules have nothing to do with kids promoting sexual activities or behaviour. If LL were going after that, I would be totally in their corner. This is more like "Oh, someone made a stunk, we need to come up with something. Doesn't matter if it really does something good, we just need to be seen as someone who cares."

[Arielle Popstar]

2 minutes ago, Vivienne Schell said:

Without kids promoting sexual activities or behavior there will be no pedos goin after them. Pretty simple, eh?

Actually no, the pedo's will up the ante until they find someone greedy/vulnerable enough to take them up on their offers to transform to a look the adult is interested in.

[Sammy Huntsman]

1 minute ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

I'm surprised that I haven't seen an all out call for a ban on child avi's. I for one, would support this wholeheartedly.  Problem solved.

I do not agree with that sentiment at all. It would be a very slippery slope, cause they ban Child Avis. What's next? Furries? That is why it is a slippery slope, and its SL we can be who we want to be. 

[Leslie Trihey]

2 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

Why are these rules stupid? 

Personally I think the modesty layer rule is excessive for four main reasons:

1: People are more then capable of covering up with BOM layers themselves and those who don't can face the "find out" portion of effing round if they get caught.

2: It's gonna destroy near decades worth of avatars, costing people years of their money and lives. Lot of content creators have left SL for various reasons and a lot of things will -never- be able to be updated to be compliant. The expectation that people should be effectively forced to throw out years of money and time because they won't have a built in perma modesty layer and start from scratch is absolutely absurd to me.

I feel that a lot of people are just going to straight up quit over this. And that's sad.

 

3: We have no idea what this modesty layer looks like yet. I worry that it's gonna be super intrusive and ruin more then a few outfits. Hopefully this will be clarified soon ™

 

4: This punishes everyone BUT the people that need to be punished. The bad people are still going to be bad and doing bad things. Meanwhile everyone else pays the price for it. In some cases (as in point 2) with losing years worth of money and time crafting their avatars.

[Vivienne Schell]

2 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

Also they are not really kids. Can we please stop calling them that, and just say child avatar. 

Fine, then...without child avaters promoting sexual behavior and activities there will be no pedos goin after then. Better?

[MissSweetViolet]

1 minute ago, Vivienne Schell said:

Without kids promoting sexual activities or behavior there will be no pedos goin after them. Pretty simple, eh?

Not true, just like women get hit on in IM by unwanted attention, so do kid avatars. People who want to go after someone will do it regardless. Are you going to accuse real life kids of advertising next? By the logic you just presented anyone who goes after someone must have been incentive by the victim. 

As for the very small minority that does violate the rules, they are likely being operated by real life pedos, in which case they can be booted appropriately.

[Starberry Passion]

1 minute ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

Also they are not really kids. Can we please stop calling them that, and just say child avatar. 

True, they are not kids they are child avatars. People get too real and that's where it gets very uncomfortable. That's why I wanted fiction to stay fiction, but more and more want to go hyper realistic because some people cannot escape realism.

They are child avatars and it does give a bad look for them to run around on adult sims, doing adult things and a worse look to say they are actual kids, because it implies the sit is doing this to irl kids.

[LittleMe Jewell]

5 minutes ago, Starberry Passion said:

Okay, you didn't have to reply to what I said then as most of us were trying to figure out what LL think is an child avatar in the first place, so they can draw a line to it.

LL will never define it down to specifics.  In some cases, it is very obvious that an avatar is a child.  In other cases, not so much. In those cases, if someone reports an avatar as "a child violating the TOS", then LL will make a judgment call on the avatar using various things, some of which will be the avatar's look, their profile statements, and how they talk/behave in chat & IMs.

[Persephone Emerald]

3 hours 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.

I'm fond of making my avatar invisible and then attaching a companion pet or object to my center as an avatar. This works for a pet wolf or a spinning Twisted cube. I imagine this would work for an animesh child as well. An animesh Zooby toddler is probably cheaper than a Zooby child avatar, and according to these new rules it wouldn't even have to have modesty patches on its skin.

[annathora]

21 hours ago, Keira Linden said:

Hi all!  I'm gonna admit that I haven't read every comment on here yet but I will be doing so shortly and responding where I can.  Just a few things first:

• The only change to the Terms and Conditions is the update to the Child Avatar Policy
• The FAQ is a living doc, which means we know it is in no way complete right now.  As questions come up here and through Support, we'll be adding more questions and answers to hopefully help clarify some of the changes.

Dear Keira Linden,

I ask you to please read each and every one of the comments here, there are many questions, and most of them are because from the beginning Linden Lab has approached this in the wrong way.

First the question would be why all these changes towards the SL Kids community? and not only that, as was asked here, what about the Japan culture community among many other communities that could be said (or not) that it is a child avatar just because the definition is vague.

Why does LInden Lab take more relevance to some "haters" who don't like children in SL (dressed or not ) without taking into account ALL the community, without even asking us?

Haven't you just put a rule that the genitals should be flat ( like barbie and ken ) and then you make a big deal about the whole layer thing ? isn't this about making the community safer and simpler ?

Putting some vague rules, poorly thought out and without any kind of sense, against a community that you want or not is and has always been in SL without taking into account the experience and the singularities of why there are people who want to be children in SL.

Terms of Service are a standard which everyone turns to in order to make Second Life a safe place for all,
However as things currently stand it would appear that these latest Terms of Service will now endanger the online safety of MANY residents in Second Life who simply wish to peacefully express their personal identities,
Especially those who attempt to challenge unfair abuse reports against them as this will certainly (to some degree) Tar peoples reputation with the dreaded A-Play brush.

It doesn't take a genius to know that with modern day cancel culture the stigma of such a label by Linden Labs will linger like a bad smell for a considerable length of time.
Even if you are cleared of any and all wrongdoing...

 

Seems Linden Lab didn't think much of how much put in danger their clients with this change of TOS., Please let us help you and create a BOARD to talk about all this together.

 

Thanks

Edited May 3 by annathora

[Ingrid Ingersoll]

3 minutes ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

I'm surprised that I haven't seen an all out call for a ban on child avi's. I for one, would support this wholeheartedly.  Problem solved.

Same. I try to give ageplayers the benefit of the doubt but inevitably those I've known have turned out to be involved in garbage. 

[Flea Yatsenko]

Just now, Sammy Huntsman said:

Why are these rules stupid? 

Because there's always been places where you're not trying to be anywhere close to a child but someone doesn't like the way you look so they call you a child and make a huge fuss.

This is going to probably end up like SLMP items being marked adult. Any merchant knows what I'm talking about.

[Arielle Popstar]

3 minutes ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

I'm surprised that I haven't seen an all out call for a ban on child avi's. I for one, would support this wholeheartedly.  Problem solved.

I don't think SL would survive that. Too many would suffer and go elsewhere as a result. I'll bet even now they are watching carefully how many are going to kick up a stink and threaten to leave.

[Ingrid Ingersoll]

1 minute ago, annathora said:

It doesn't take a genius to know that with modern day cancel culture the stigma of such a label by Linden Labs will linger like a bad smell for a considerable length of time

They're canceling pedophiles. What a horrible company. How dare they. 

[LittleMe Jewell]

1 minute ago, Persephone Emerald said:

An animesh Zooby toddler is probably cheaper than a Zooby child avatar, and according to these new rules it wouldn't even have to have modesty patches on its skin.

I would not bet on the bolded part.  Once LL thinks about it,  and thinks about what sort of images could be created with animesh children, I wouldn't be surprised to see the modesty layer applied to them also.  

The very top of the Child Avatar rules say "Visual depictions of a child or child avatar engaging in sexually explicit or sexually suggestive acts."  The first part of that applies to anything that looks like a child.

[annathora]

3 minutes ago, Ingrid Ingersoll said:

Same. I try to give ageplayers the benefit of the doubt but inevitably those I've known have turned out to be involved in garbage. 

problem is people put in same bag a-players (with sexual meaning) than people who play as a kid just for aviod the sexual  dramas and harassment.

[Kathlen Onyx]

8 minutes ago, Starberry Passion said:

While I agree with you, I rarely have ever heard of pedophilic activity for a long long time. A mysterious blog came and then it just suddenly left, and had everyone panicked.

People don't even know if it was true or fake, people just took it as word from some guy they don't even know.

I'm pretty sure that LL investigated and must have found some merit to it or they would not have taken these steps. Don't dismiss a problem just because you personally don't see it.

[Starberry Passion]

2 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

I do not agree with that sentiment at all. It would be a very slippery slope, cause they ban Child Avis. What's next? Furries? That is why it is a slippery slope, and its SL we can be who we want to be. 

Agreed. Second life banning any group of avatars would not be wise at all, I'm not saying wokeism, but a world like Secondlife Has to be all inclusive with tons of diversity to survive. People are don't think and look at the big picture, most just think about them and their friends, when you're running a business you can't just support one group, you have to be open for all groups.

Secondlife advertises itself as a second life, a world where you can be anything, do anything (except stuff that isn't accepted by the community) Rp, Build, Create and here it is banning a certain type of avatar. That will, not only be a bad look outside of Second life, but alienate a large chunk of people that have reasons for wanting a family, or feel like a kid again, or wanting to be a furry, or wanting to be an alien monster, or wanting to be a car.

Second life banning them would possibly be more than devastating. 

[annathora]

Just now, Ingrid Ingersoll said:

They're canceling pedophiles. What a horrible company. How dare they. 

Everybody is fine about ban pedos, im the first one, we reported many of them, we banned on our SIMS thousands of them, but be a kid is not be a pedo as be a adult avatar doesn't mean you are a well furnished brain

[Ingrid Ingersoll]

1 minute ago, annathora said:

problem is people put in same bag a-players (with sexual meaning) than people who play as a kid just for aviod the sexual  dramas and harassment.

I feel like it would do just the opposite. 

[Rowan Amore]

child-like

adjective

: resembling, suggesting, or appropriate to a child or childhood

You can certainly make a genus head look like a child.  It's called baby face for a reason?   There's a difference between a child-like appearance and a child-like sense of wonder, adventure, etc.  It's the appearance that matters in SL not how you perceive the world around you.  We all should have a child-like sense of wonder at times.  Just try not to have a child-like look in an adult area.

[annathora]

Just now, Ingrid Ingersoll said:

I feel like it would do just the opposite. 

ask to make simple the layer thing is not a big deal, are many ways to have the same result without breaking the work of people and cut the liberty of expression

[Vivienne Schell]

2 minutes ago, Leslie Trihey said:

Personally I think the modesty layer rule is excessive for four main reasons:

1: People are more then capable of covering up with BOM layers themselves and those who don't can face the "find out" portion of effing round if they get caught.

BOM layers won´t do. Required isa skin (patches included) which cannot be removed. When you use BOM layers you remove the patches. There is no effing around. It´s plain and simple: If someone wants to ***** the someone has to use a child avi lacking any sexual attributes. Also has to trash each and any profile link to adult rated or clearly sexual content (places, stores, groups, whatever). If someone refuses to do so, the someone must have an interest in sexualised child behavior or the graphic display of a sexualised child.

[Ingrid Ingersoll]

2 minutes ago, annathora said:

a adult avatar doesn't mean you are a well furnished brain

My brain is furnished just fine thankyouverymuch

[Baby Simp]

There are height scanners to auto eject little avatars or avatars that are under what LL deems a child avatar. There is a store creator who made a script you can drop in your adult furniture so no little avatars can sit or use the furniture.  Little skin creatures can cover their bases and make the skins already with the modesty layers added to it. These are just a few things one can do to keep yourself safe from any predators or age players that are still on the grid. Hope this helps.