So what changed in the Terms of Service?

[Leslie Trihey]

2 minutes ago, CaithLynnSayes said:

I was so expecting this thing to be closed by now. Someone would have slightly stepped out of line and *WHAAM*, locked.

It's good to have a dedicated "Containment" thread so it doesn't spread to multiple topics across multiple subforums creating more madness.

[Persephone Emerald]

3 hours ago, Yorkie Bardeen said:

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.

It's impossible for LL to make that scenario impossible.

The bad actors can easily get around restrictions on what kind of skins they can wear. Nothing can stop them from wearing an adult skin or attaching genital attachments or a Mama Allpa HUD. Nothing can stop them from using sex animations in furniture or in a HUD. Nothing can stop them from soliciting someone in an IM or arranging to meet them in a private sim or parcel with Privacy settings turned on.

All Governance can control is what happens in public, and even then they are dependent on other users reporting what they see. Sensible people aren't going to be derendering mesh clothing on child avatars or using a "What is She Wearing" HUD to check their skin layer, so why even set a rule about skin layers for child avatars?

The only reason I can see is to restrict what kinds of skins are sold as child skins, to create a rule to enforce against creators of content marketed for child avatars, not to go after everyone who might look like a child, a teen, a fairy or a cub.

[Daniel Regenbogen]

3 minutes ago, Ingrid Ingersoll said:

Creating an  environment that makes it more difficult to commit crime is good. 

Yep, works well in countries like China or North Korea. East Germany, too, but in 1989 those idiots decided to get rid of the communist dictatorship and even tore down the Wall...

[Starberry Passion]

3 minutes ago, CaithLynnSayes said:

I was so expecting this thing to be closed by now. Someone would have slightly stepped out of line and *WHAAM*, locked.

It's probably close to that.

[MissSweetViolet]

Just now, Sid Nagy said:

It is Friday... weekend starts at the Lab. There are only those around who feed the hamsters.  Expect no answers before Monday, if ever here on the forums. More likely is a few new lines in one of the wiki pages or a new blog post.

True. I just got my hopes up when Keira said she'd be answering questions soon. As their are a few that could certainly use answers/clarification.

[annathora]

7 minutes ago, Ingrid Ingersoll said:

This is exactly why sl needs to clean house. 

need clean the house of haters , of people with a porly education and semi nazis .,

[Sid Nagy]

6 minutes ago, CaithLynnSayes said:

I was so expecting this thing to be closed by now. Someone would have slightly stepped out of line and *WHAAM*, locked.

It is wise to let this rage go on for a while. People will log in to the world at some point this weekend and then realize they agreed to the TOS without reading or hesitating.
And then things will calm down.  If they close the thread the twisted nickers will only get more twisted.

 

Edited May 3 by Sid Nagy

[Ingrid Ingersoll]

1 minute ago, Leslie Trihey said:

Or you know, go after the blatant violators and leave the rest of us alone. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ That would make to much sense though. Can't be done in today nanny state culture.

Who exactly is persecuting you? Have you been banned?

I remember years ago when threads about ***** would roll out and people tried to silence anyone  concerned about pedophiles by mocking them with "won't someone think of the children". As if concerns over kids wellbeing were lolworthy.

When I look back on that now years later I realize how utterly antisocial and f'ed up that was. 

 

 

 

[Vanity Fair]

5 hours ago, Katherine Heartsong said:

Couldn't the whole BoM thing on top of your base avatar's skin layer problem be solved by either LL themselves making approved kid avatars (though after Senra's overall look, maybe not) or simply have any shop selling child/pre-teen avatars simply turn off BoM and work with any one of a handful of popular skin places to make them in the right skin tones?

For example, you go to shop for your 10 year old avatar body at "10 year Olds R Us" and buy the boy one. Voila, inside the HUD for the body are 10 skin settings from Velour to pick from (much like the new LaraX comes with), and no BoM option, so that when buy your head you simply need a skin for that head that matches the Velour tones?

On a related note, I wonder if Velour and other (adult) skin makers are prepared that they might have to make new skins for child/teen avatars with the modesty panel, which would be sold separately. I would assume that most teen avatars (i.e. those who present as being under 18) would be using adult skins, right? Obviously, creators like ToodleeDoo would just replace their entire skin line, but where there could be some crossover between child/teen and adult, I could see this happening, right?

[CaithLynnSayes]

Just now, Sid Nagy said:

and then realize they agreed to the TOS without reading or hesitating.

[Dorientje Woller]

Loads of bickering as what is considered child and adult and the in betweens, but not one jota of what of minimum sizes what can be used as adult proportions:

My height is 1m55 (as stated as minimum allowed size on one adult sim to be considered not a child/underaged), breast size is 45 because this size is a "good looking" size on the Maitreya Lara V5.3 with or without "petite" add-on, LaraX & LaraX Petite.

If you have other minimum requirements in mind, be free to post them.

[Leslie Trihey]

4 minutes ago, Ingrid Ingersoll said:

Who exactly is persecuting you? Have you been banned?

I remember years ago when threads about ***** would roll out and people tried to silence anyone  concerned about pedophiles by mocking them with "won't someone think of the children". As if concerns over kids wellbeing were lolworthy.

When I look back on that now years later I realize how utterly antisocial and f'ed up that was. 

 

 

 

I'm against this simply because it's not going to effect the bad people, at all. It's nonsense that's going to destroy over a decades worth of content, communities, and eff over innocent people. While the bad people get off scott free unless they drop the ball.

Edited May 3 by Leslie Trihey

[LittleMe Jewell]

11 minutes ago, Sid Nagy said:

The thread is still about the same arguments that hit the thread in the first four pages, only for the 10th time.

Yep - I'm about ready to bow out just for that reason.  

[MissSweetViolet]

Just now, Dorientje Woller said:

Loads of bickering as what is considered child and adult and the in betweens, but not one jota of what of minimum sizes what can be used as adult proportions:

My height is 1m55 (as stated as minimum allowed size on one adult sim to be considered not a child/underaged), breast size is 45 because this size is a "good looking" size on the Maitreya Lara V5.3 with or without "petite" add-on, LaraX & LaraX Petite.

If you have other minimum requirements in mind, be free to post them.

You'll probably not get that since height/size alone can't really determine it.

[Vivienne Schell]

3 minutes ago, Vanity Fair said:

On a related note, I wonder if Velour and other (adult) skin makers are prepared that they might have to make new skins for child/teen avatars with the modesty panel, which would be sold separately. I would assume that most teen avatars (i.e. those who present as being under 18) would be using adult skins, right? Obviously, creators like ToodleeDoo would just replace their entire skin line, but where there could be some crossover between child/teen and adult, I could see this happening, right?

My guess is that the adult skin creators won´t bother much. It´s not their problem when someone uses their skins for graphic display of a sexualised child. Also, the ***** crowd is insignificant by the numbers, i doubt that the additional workwould pay of for anyone.

[Sid Nagy]

Just now, LittleMe Jewell said:

Yep - I'm about ready to bow out just for that reason.  

I think I will have another peek when page 60 is hit. Most likely still today.

[Arielle Popstar]

10 minutes ago, MissSweetViolet said:

I agree with this, as long as the avatar is covered I don't see the issue, if you see someone not wearing a covering, you report, just as you would do if it were baked into the body/skin, the rule should be simply stay covered at all times.

Someone not wearing a cover would be violating the rules.

While don't care about the cover being enforced to being built into the body, I wear one anyway, always have, even on my adult and dinkie kitty, I feel like most people here can see this seems excessive for the tools already in place.

Now the the question is whether it is a 17 year old with or without the modesty cover or a 19 year old. Some here will use the justification of letting Governance sort it out and report the avatar. Governance may be swamped and just start or continue banning without an investigation. As far as reviewing bans, I'll believe it when I hear of it and one question will be whether an AR'red account will actually hear they are being reviewed or it is just Governance making it sound good but not really following through.

[Starberry Passion]

2 minutes ago, Dorientje Woller said:

Loads of bickering as what is considered child and adult and the in betweens, but not one jota of what of minimum sizes what can be used as adult proportions:

My height is 1m55 (as stated as minimum allowed size on one adult sim to be considered not a child/underaged), breast size is 45 because this size is a "good looking" size on the Maitreya Lara V5.3 with or without "petite" add-on, LaraX & LaraX Petite.

If you have other minimum requirements in mind, be free to post them.

Height and I don't think breast size have to do with being a child. Not all women are from the U.S., not all of them are from E.U, It's how you act, what you're wearing, how you're presenting yourself in total, not just looking cute or something as in if your whole aesthetic is a child.

Height does not matter as long as you are an adult.

[Kathlen Onyx]

3 minutes ago, Vivienne Schell said:

Also, the ***** crowd is insignificant by the numbers, i doubt that the additional workwould pay of for anyone.

You don't know this. It's obviously large enough LL changed the entire TOS for it.  AND one person engaging in this activity is too much.

[Vanity Fair]

4 hours ago, Qie Niangao said:

Then, years after that was in place, after the huge scandal that lead to the original Adult Content policy, they introduced this age verification process administered by a third party, Aristotle / Integrity, that went (obviously) the other way: making sure only RL adults could access SL Adult content. Only problem was that it was just absurdly leaky. People routinely verified as Elvis Presley. That's how age verification's reputation of pointlessness was established in SL, and eventually they dropped it because other platforms were using self-reported age as "good enough" for legal purposes.

All that was a long time ago; it's very possible there are more reliable and/or less intrusive verification methods now in common use.

Yes, that's how I remember it as well. I also seem to remember that Aristotle was asking for verifying information such as credit cards, social insurance numbers, or passport numbers, which apparently CANNOT be used for age verification (and Canadians can complain to the Office of the Canadian Privacy Commissioner is anybody asks for that sort of information solely for the purposes of age verification). Credit card companies are in the credit business, NOT the age verification business. Trying to cover all possibilities and legalities for a global audience is a fool's errand.

[Polenth Yue]

Not sure if the Lindens are still reading, but it'd be good to have a worked example of how the modesty layers work. Does it mean a Barbie/Ken style body with a skin with underwear BOMed on? That'd be the most obvious conclusion (and current child avatars are already flat in those areas, that I've seen, so would comply with a new underwear skin). But if they mean something else, they really need to explain that. Make it very clear what creators have to do before the deadline.

[MissSweetViolet]

1 minute ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Now the the question is whether it is a 17 year old with or without the modesty cover or a 19 year old. Some here will use the justification of letting Governance sort it out and report the avatar. Governance may be swamped and just start or continue banning without an investigation. As far as reviewing bans, I'll believe it when I hear of it and one question will be whether an AR'red account will actually hear they are being reviewed or it is just Governance making it sound good but not really following through.

I agree, for teen avatars this feels almost impossible to police, especially the 17-20 range, regardless of the solution they implement. I was thinking more for the the 13 and under crowd. It would still be quite easy to just ban if no layers are worn by them, regardless if it's built in or a BoM layer.

[Ayashe Ninetails]

7 minutes ago, Vanity Fair said:

On a related note, I wonder if Velour and other (adult) skin makers are prepared that they might have to make new skins for child/teen avatars with the modesty panel, which would be sold separately. I would assume that most teen avatars (i.e. those who present as being under 18) would be using adult skins, right? Obviously, creators like ToodleeDoo would just replace their entire skin line, but where there could be some crossover between child/teen and adult, I could see this happening, right?

I was wondering this myself. There are pros and cons to adult skin makers getting involved here (mostly to do with time - how many bodies and types can they feasibly support, really???), but if they don't, what would teen avatars have to do to comply with the new rules? This is, of course, assuming they too need modesty layers.

[MissSweetViolet]

1 minute ago, Polenth Yue said:

Not sure if the Lindens are still reading, but it'd be good to have a worked example of how the modesty layers work. Does it mean a Barbie/Ken style body with a skin with underwear BOMed on? That'd be the most obvious conclusion (and current child avatars are already flat in those areas, that I've seen, so would comply with a new underwear skin). But if they mean something else, they really need to explain that. Make it very clear what creators have to do before the deadline.

Yes, very much this. Honestly it shouldn't be to much to ask for an example so creators know what they need to do to align with the rules.

[Kathlen Onyx]

2 minutes ago, Ayashe Ninetails said:

I was wondering this myself. There are pros and cons to adult skin makers getting involved here (mostly to do with time - how many bodies and types can they feasibly support, really???), but if they don't, what would teen avatars have to do to comply with the new rules? This is, of course, assuming they too need modesty layers.

Perhaps that is the end goal?