Love Zhaoying Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 3 minutes ago, Madi Melodious said: That breaks years worth of content For the sake of serious discussion: if an "allowed fix" is to wear some official modesty layer, then how does that break content? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingrid Ingersoll Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 35 minutes ago, Leslie Trihey said: Punishing a group of people for something that MIGHT happen worked well in the past. (It didn't)As it's been pointed out by myself and several other people, this isn't going to effect the bad eggs at all. You keep saying that without anything to support it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissSweetViolet Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 1 minute ago, Madi Melodious said: This is what I'm wanting to hear about. From the feed back I've been getting most child avatars are fine with most of with the new changes. Staying out of adult sim, that has been a unwritten rule for years. Nothing lost there. The prohibition on nudity, we can live with that, the ken and barbie look all around. It is the modesty requirement that breaks the deal for a lot. That breaks years worth of content and simply makes no sense when said parts can be completely alphaed out or in my case removed. My issue isn't so much with the modesty requirement, I don't even really care about it being built in or not one way or the other, I've always worn a BoM layer long before this. But while I get the concept their going for, I just feel like it's going to make it quite hard on content creators plus break a ton of content and that a BoM/applier layer required could get them same result. While I get their going for the cases where someone could just go somewhere private and remove it, I hate to say this, but this won't stop that. Because if someone is breaking the law anyway, this will just be another law they will break. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayashe Ninetails Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 2 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said: For the sake of serious discussion: if an "allowed fix" is to wear some official modesty layer, then how does that break content? All skins they're wearing right now will need to be trashed. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bimbo Mommy Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 6 minutes ago, Starberry Passion said: Is the creator of Tweenster on Second life still? if they aren't then it might be banned, since it won't get an update. Also, love your avatar if that's your avatar in your pfp. From what I read in various places, they are not on SL anymore or are sporadically active. Also, yes that is my avi, thank you! ♥ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starberry Passion Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 this leaves less room for discrimination, thank you. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissSweetViolet Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 3 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said: For the sake of serious discussion: if an "allowed fix" is to wear some official modesty layer, then how does that break content? The main thing it'll likely effect [assuming I've understood that the layer must be directly in the mesh of the body, since they say unremovable], is BoM tights, swimsuits. and depending on LL's idea of modesty some tops maybe. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanity Fair Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Tommy Linden said: Hello Again, I just want to let everyone know that we have been making some updates to the FAQ originally posted. In addition, please don't take the silence from us in the thread to mean we are not still reading all of the feedback. We are still listening and working to answer more questions. Quick link again to the FAQ for those who might need it (or if you are like me, to just save you the time of trying to find it in your sea of open tabs). https://lindenlab.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/31000173097-child-avatar-faq EDIT: Thank you, Tommy! You Lindens were so actively posting to the thread yesterday, so many of us had been wondering why there had been no comments from you guys so far today. BUT... Checks the Child Avatar FAQ to see what was updated and still sees this (which means that my alt with the ToodleeDoo child body will still be illegal after June 30th, 2024, since I'm not going to go through the hassle of updating a many-years-old avatar that only gets used once or twice a year). Edited May 3 by Vanity Fair 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Persephone Emerald Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 3 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said: A store that sells both Adult and items rated general or moderate would require a store in each to be able to serve both adult content and give access to those who are no longer able to access Adult regions We all know that furniture stores sell PG and Adult versions right next to each other, right? They're allowed to be on Moderate land. Clothing stores can sell both modest clothing and sexy lingerie on Moderate land. Skin and mesh body stores can sell on Moderate land, even if their ad pictures show nipples. If a customer gets naked while trying on clothing or a skin, this is allowed in Moderate regions too. Very few stores have to be on Adult rated land. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 3 minutes ago, Starberry Passion said: this leaves less room for discrimination, thank you. That just means more will be considered if an abuse report is filed. Region owners can still refuse to allow small, childlike avatars. 6 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Persephone Emerald Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 3 hours ago, Daniel Regenbogen said: Child and teen avatars should not do adult things, it's really that simple. Just being somewhere is *not* doing anything adult. It is now. 3 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BilliJo Aldrin Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 2 hours ago, Sammy Huntsman said: Why are these rules stupid? they are stupid because they will not solve the problem. Why have rules that wont solve anything, and will only upset the innocent victims of these new rules 5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alwin Alcott Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 9 minutes ago, Ingrid Ingersoll said: You keep saying that without anything to support it. i think you really see the group abusing the rules as to big, and it makes your statement to much black/white. It are excesses they want to ban. And these rules aren't going to fix it, it's a buckshot with the hope to hit something. It might make a broader awareness on the problem. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starberry Passion Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 6 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said: That just means more will be considered if an abuse report is filed. Region owners can still refuse to allow small, childlike avatars. No, I'm pretty sure that this clarifies that those who do have a petite build, are slim and are grown women don't have to live in fear for being women who are just skinny. Stop trying to say that slim, petite or short is childlike, it's not. 3 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Regenbogen Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 3 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said: It is now. No, it isn't. It is something forbidden now, but it still isn't doing anything adult. Walking down a street isn't an adult action. Fixing a rental box isn't an adult action. Shopping (for non-adult items) isn't an adult action. Heck, skinny dipping isn't an adult action. It feels more and more like "Moms for Liberty" have taken over the policy making. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanity Fair Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 I think we should start a betting pool as to when this thread is gonna get locked. Vanity puts a 5-dollar bill on the 3:00 p.m. timeslot for today. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathlen Onyx Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 5 minutes ago, Starberry Passion said: No, I'm pretty sure that this clarifies that those who do have a petite build, are slim and are grown women don't have to live in fear for being women who are just skinny. Stop trying to say that slim, petite or short is childlike, it's not. NO, it means height is not the only factor that will determine if the avi is a child avatar or not. Maybe re-read the FAQ's. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathlen Onyx Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 3 minutes ago, Vanity Fair said: I think we should start a betting pool as to when this thread is gonna get locked. Vanity puts a 5-dollar bill on the 3:00 p.m. timeslot for today. Why is everyone saying this? It's like people want it locked. It will just continue in a newly created thread with a different title. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathlen Onyx Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 7 minutes ago, Daniel Regenbogen said: No, it isn't. It is something forbidden now, but it still isn't doing anything adult. Walking down a street isn't an adult action. Fixing a rental box isn't an adult action. Shopping (for non-adult items) isn't an adult action. Heck, skinny dipping isn't an adult action. It feels more and more like "Moms for Liberty" have taken over the policy making. She means just being in a A rated sim is now banned. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Istelathis Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 2 minutes ago, Vanity Fair said: I think we should start a betting pool as to when this thread is gonna get locked. Vanity puts a 5-dollar bill on the 3:00 p.m. timeslot for today. SLT? My bet is it will remain open, until it fizzles out and everyone has gotten it out of their system. When the additions to the TOS comes out then there will be a new thread that will be open for a few hours, perhaps although not likely, resulting in further TOS changes. Eventually the employees will get fed up and lock all mention of it 🤣 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brodiac90 Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 I personally want clarity on the cannot be removed part of the modesty layer. Does it mean a skin that when applied can't be nude, or does it mean the avatar can never have any skin without the modesty layer, because if that's the case then I don't know how any creator is going to do that. The only way would be a completely new child avatar where skins cannot be applied (is that even possible?) I think LL may just have banned all child avis unless I'm wrong. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innula Zenovka Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 3 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said: Or that you haven't paid enough attention to them or put out so they AR because we could be seen as under 18. Not safe anymore. I find it difficult to believe that "could be seen as under 18" is the test here, assuming there's no other indication of the avatar's supposed age. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cristiano Midnight Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 7 hours ago, Starberry Passion said: Or they use an adult head and think it looks like a child, but it doesn't look like it but it's on a child avatar body, For example. The face look like some 20 year old woman's face but it's on a child's body. No disrespect to whoever that is, but that is some uncanny valley level ***** right there. 😱 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Rhiadra Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 2 hours ago, LittleMe Jewell said: All appeals were reviewed before -- they always have been. However, when it comes to the ***** issue, the reviews almost never resulted in any sort of reversal of the original ban. Is that a largely anecdotal conclusion? Years ago, 2010 I think, a friend of mine was accused of a*eplay by a griefer (anyone who knew him found the accusation laughable, and he NEVER used a child avatar). He was suspended for, I think, about 8 days while they investigated, and then cleared. He's still in SL (although not active at the mo). 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 2 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said: Is that a largely anecdotal conclusion? Agreed. There is no way for us to know, because LL does not release the details and result of Reports or Appeals. All we know is what we read or hear from other people. And, we are MUCH more likely to see complaints about people who were "banned" and either came back to complain, or their friends complained. ("Reviews" work the same way, people don't most as many "positive reviews".) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts