So what changed in the Terms of Service?

[Rowan Amore]

4 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I do see people in this thread conflating the LL rules with the fact individual region owners can "Ban" for whatever reason. 

That's my point.  There will be no less discrimination (which is what I was responding to) by owners of adult regions.  Many will actually be more concerned with those slim, short avatars being confused with a teen.  

[Kathlen Onyx]

2 minutes ago, Madi Melodious said:

So, basically all I have to do is declare that i'm no longer a child avatar and I can keep my shape and look?  Very good.  "I'm no longer a child avatar."   there problem solved.

It's comments like this that may get Child Avi's banned completely.

[Theresa Ravenheart]

3 minutes ago, MissSweetViolet said:

For teens that works, but gets trickier for some bodies, because with TD Baby, Kid, and Tweeneedoo, [and probably others, but I've only ever used Kid], their is no male/female body, any gender uses the same body, so you'd have included two versions if it went this route.

I think it would be simple, go with the most restrictive option if there is no clear gender for the body, no guess work.

[Bimbo Mommy]

7 minutes ago, Theresa Ravenheart said:

Something that might be good for LL to look at and use to define the modesty coverage rules for child and teen avatars, it should be clearly defined liked IMVU does so that it cannot be questioned at all. 

https://create.imvu.com/articles/classic/understanding-minimum-coverage-guidelines/#:~:text=To accurately test the coverage,not sheer or transparent).

This would be an excellent graphic for them to provide, as suggested minimum coverage. Honestly they could do well to provide something like this for all avatars, so we can have solid visual guides for regions that enforce dress codes.

[Rowan Amore]

6 minutes ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

A BOM layer can be removed. It's if built into the body it can't be removed. A different body must be used. I would assume, based on common sense, the don't mean BOM skin layer.

They do need to clarify since system skins on mesh bodies can not be removed, only replaced.  Would that be sufficient?  Words and word meanings are important.

I use the Velour system skin on my body and not a BoM tattoo layer.

Edited May 3 by Rowan Amore

[MissSweetViolet]

6 minutes ago, brodiac90 said:

I think this might be the only way to do it. Like, you hav your body, and then you have mesh underwear over your body which then is locked in place. So when you put on your avatar the underwear is always there. If that's the case then every fit mesh clothing is broken. 

That's my thought at least, but it doesn't necessarily need to break clothing though. With Maitreya clothing and tattoo layers fit skin tight, you can wear any clothing over it just as if you weren't wearing them, so I would assume this fix to work the same.

What I don't know is how that would work with an alpha hud, which most kid bodies have, since LL stated an alpha wasn't a good fix, so how do we alpha out for clothing then? That's another question that should be answered.

Edited May 3 by MissSweetViolet
Spelling corrections.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

5 minutes ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

I have a question that I don't think has been covered here.

Are there any ramifications for region owners if they allow Child Avi's on their land.  Say there is a club that is A rated and only has child avi's that are all out of compliance.

Will the club/region owner also be banned for allowing this or is this simply on an avatar case by case basis?

In other words, should region owners be concerned here at all about being perma banned?

 

In some ways, this question is at the heart of most of the concerns people have had for years about kiddie avatars, and the reason why there have been places that automatically banned on the basis of height and so forth: the "chill" factor that comes with the uncertainty of knowing whether or not a venue can be held liable for the inappropriate presence of child avatars.

In the past, when the rules were looser, there was a lot of unnecessary moral panic about this -- kiddie avis being banned from clubs, etc., not because there was sex happening there, but because there might be "strong language" and the like. A lot of region and parcel owners have, in the past, leaned heavily towards being overly-cautious, I think.

That should be less of an issue, in theory, now that the rules are clearer about Adult rated areas. But it doesn't really answer your question. If the owner of an A-rated place is not in-world, for instance, when a group of kiddie avatars appear there (whom, I imagine, would likely be griefers rather than real child RPers), is that owner "responsible" for their presence? Could they be punished for it?

My guess is no: that LL's investigation of any ARs that resulted would make it clear that this was not the fault of the landowner.

But I do agree that some clarification from LL on this would also be good.

[Ineffable Mote]

Nearing 49 pages in and I still think these changes will be a heck of a lot less disruptive than the introduction of adult regions and the move to Zindra, way back then.

[Rowan Amore]

4 minutes ago, MissSweetViolet said:

That's my thought at least, but it doesn't necessarily need to break clothing though. With Maitreya clothing and tattoo layers fit skin tight, you can wear any clothing over it just as if you weren't wearing them, so I would assume this fix to work the same.

What I don't know is how that would work with an alpha hud, which most kid bodies have, since LL stated an alpha wasn't a good fix, so how do we alpha out for clothing then? That's another question that should be answered.

Regardless.of what body one wears, as long as it is BoM enabled, you can wear a system skin.  The type we all.used to wear.  If you want to present as a child/teen, wearing a system skin with modesty baked onto it should suffice.  It can't be removed but can be replaced.  Alpha cuts and all.other clothing for that mesh body will still work just fine.

 

[MissSweetViolet]

2 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

In some ways, this question is at the heart of most of the concerns people have had for years about kiddie avatars, and the reason why there have been places that automatically banned on the basis of height and so forth: the "chill" factor that comes with the uncertainty of knowing whether or not a venue can be held liable for the inappropriate presence of child avatars.

In the past, when the rules were looser, there was a lot of unnecessary moral panic about this -- kiddie avis being banned from clubs, etc., not because there was sex happening there, but because there might be "strong language" and the like. A lot of region and parcel owners have, in the past, leaned heavily towards being overly-cautious, I think.

That should be less of an issue, in theory, now that the rules are clearer about Adult rated areas. But it doesn't really answer your question. If the owner of an A-rated place is not in-world, for instance, when a group of kiddie avatars appear there (whom, I imagine, would likely be griefers rather than real child RPers), is that owner "responsible" for their presence? Could they be punished for it?

My guess is no: that LL's investigation of any ARs that resulted would make it clear that this was not the fault of the landowner.

But I do agree that some clarification from LL on this would also be good.

Per the new rules, I would assume since child avatars are no longer allowed in adult parcels, it should be the fault of the child. Especially since LL should be able to prove if the landowner was not online at the time. Even if they clamed to be invited, LL could easily check chat logs to see that's not the case. So if they investigate thoroughly, this shouldn't be an issue.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

8 minutes ago, Madi Melodious said:

So, basically all I have to do is declare that i'm no longer a child avatar and I can keep my shape and look?  Very good.  "I'm no longer a child avatar."   there problem solved.

I get that you are being facetious, but this does highlight what I think is actually a more problematic aspect of a*eplay in SL: the idea that seems to be current that simply declaring on your profile that you are 18+ somehow lets you off the hook, even if you happen to be playing a grade 10 student in a sexy school RP scenario, or are being "punished" by your "daddy" for breaking curfew or not eating your veggies at dinner, etc.

Not sure if this needs a clarification from LL or not, but I'd hope that merely saying that you are not underage is NOT enough to allow you to get away with what is otherwise obviously a*eplay.

On the other hand, I don't think that LL cares as much about a*eplay involving teens, especially in the 15+ or so range, because it doesn't "look" as bad.

[Ineffable Mote]

5 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

That should be less of an issue, in theory, now that the rules are clearer about Adult rated areas. But it doesn't really answer your question. If the owner of an A-rated place is not in-world, for instance, when a group of kiddie avatars appear there (whom, I imagine, would likely be griefers rather than real child RPers), is that owner "responsible" for their presence? Could they be punished for it?

 

I'd presume keywords/marketing and content in the club would still matter, to some degree.

[Starberry Passion]

3 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Ok then, all that secttion says is short, slim and petite will not be the sole factors if a abuse report is filed.  Short, slim, petite women may still be restricted from entering regions by region owners.  Better?

No, not at all. It doesn't matter if the region or sim owners can restrict someone short, petite or slim, what matters is they cannot be reported for A.P. just because they are short, petite, or slim. Even if you continue to infantile a normal body type, you cannot head hunt because someone is being a realistic womanly feature own its own. I don't know why you even continue to talk to me.

https://www.verywellhealth.com/average-height-for-women-8420952#:~:text=Based on the most recent,is primarily influenced by genetics.

https://www.worlddata.info/average-breastsize.php

and here are average global weights for women https://www.medicinenet.com/weight_women/article.htm

I'm sorry you don't like this but women come in all shapes and sizes, not all of us have big breasts, big butts, not all of us are tall models, some of us are average and because Linden Lab is being inclusive with this and defending the female body in any shape

I am proud of them.

[Persephone Emerald]

3 hours ago, Rowan Amore said:

AI is still pretty bad at determining age. I wonder too if a racial bias might be part of the problem, or if it's just a gender bias based on how the media expects women to look so young. You know there are people who a assume a young black girl is more "mature" than they would assume for a white or Asian girl of the same age.

I'd guess the girl in that picture is no more than 8 years old, based on both her facial features and her neck and shoulder width.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 minute ago, MissSweetViolet said:

Even if they clamed to be invited, LL could easily check chat logs to see that's not the case. So if they investigate thoroughly, this shouldn't be an issue.

Agreed, this is more or less what I was saying as well.

A statement in the FAQ that directly addresses this, however, might reduce the panic that these new rules are likely to trigger among some landowners.

[MissSweetViolet]

4 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Regardless.of what body one wears, as long as it is BoM enabled, you can wear a system skin.  The type we all.used to wear.  If you want to present as a child/teen, wearing a system skin with modesty baked onto it should suffice.  It can't be removed but can be replaced.  Alpha cuts and all.other clothing for that mesh body will still work just fine.

 

Oh I agree with you, that should be sufficient. But since they make the statement can not be removed in the FAQ and call out the body makers, I'm just reading it that it must be built into the body mesh till told otherwise, because I have no idea out else to interpreted can not be removed, since you could still remove a skin, even if just replacing with a new one.

Edited May 3 by MissSweetViolet
Clarification.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Just now, Ineffable Mote said:

I'd presume keywords/marketing and content in the club would still matter, to some degree.

Yes, good point.

[Starberry Passion]

15 minutes ago, Madi Melodious said:

So, basically all I have to do is declare that i'm no longer a child avatar and I can keep my shape and look?  Very good.  "I'm no longer a child avatar."   there problem solved.

If you are a child avatar, that won't work. All child avatars, if you dress like a child, act like a child, look exactly like a child you're still going to be seen as a child.

[Rowan Amore]

1 minute ago, Starberry Passion said:

No, not at all. It doesn't matter if the region or sim owners can restrict someone short, petite or slim, what matters is they cannot be reported for A.P. just because they are short, petite, or slim. Even if you continue to infantile a normal body type, you cannot head hunt because someone is being a realistic womanly feature own its own. I don't know why you even continue to talk to me.

https://www.verywellhealth.com/average-height-for-women-8420952#:~:text=Based on the most recent,is primarily influenced by genetics.

https://www.worlddata.info/average-breastsize.php

and here are average global weights for women https://www.medicinenet.com/weight_women/article.htm

I'm sorry you don't like this but women come in all shapes and sizes, not all of us have big breasts, big butts, not all of us are tall models, some of us are average and because Linden Lab is being inclusive with this and defending the female body in any shape

I am proud of them.

Please, reread what I wrote.  You're just being rude now.

[Ingrid Ingersoll]

2 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

IOn the other hand, I don't think that LL cares as much about a*eplay involving teens, especially in the 15+ or so range, because it doesn't "look" as bad.

I think you're right. Tweensters will still be on the menu. 

[Kathlen Onyx]

3 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

In some ways, this question is at the heart of most of the concerns people have had for years about kiddie avatars, and the reason why there have been places that automatically banned on the basis of height and so forth: the "chill" factor that comes with the uncertainty of knowing whether or not a venue can be held liable for the inappropriate presence of child avatars.

In the past, when the rules were looser, there was a lot of unnecessary moral panic about this -- kiddie avis being banned from clubs, etc., not because there was sex happening there, but because there might be "strong language" and the like. A lot of region and parcel owners have, in the past, leaned heavily towards being overly-cautious, I think.

That should be less of an issue, in theory, now that the rules are clearer about Adult rated areas. But it doesn't really answer your question. If the owner of an A-rated place is not in-world, for instance, when a group of kiddie avatars appear there (whom, I imagine, would likely be griefers rather than real child RPers), is that owner "responsible" for their presence? Could they be punished for it?

My guess is no: that LL's investigation of any ARs that resulted would make it clear that this was not the fault of the landowner.

But I do agree that some clarification from LL on this would also be good.

This addresses part of my question BUT what if there is a A-rated club (or M-rated for that matter)  that allows child avi looking avatars to be there because they have determined that they are not a child avi.  I was at a club today where clearly the avatar looked like a "teen". Their profile said otherwise but they still looked like one, wearing just a skimpy thong bikini with the "package" clearly shown.  I guess this is where the 16-25 year old range might fall. 

Also how is a owner of a region to know if that avi is in compliance and wearing a body or skin with a modesty layer?

What's to stop me (I wouldn't) from opening a M-rated region and allowing child avi's to be there and not have to be in compliance?

I just see a lot of reasons for this to be hidden more now instead of the problem being dealt with.

[Starberry Passion]

2 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

AI is still pretty bad at determining age. I wonder too if a racial bias might be part of the problem, or if it's just a gender bias based on how the media expects women to look so young. You know there are people who a assume a young black girl is more "mature" than they would assume for a white or Asian girl of the same age.

I'd guess the girl in that picture is no more than 8 years old, based on both her facial features and her neck and shoulder width.

She's suppose to be a toddler since that's the BeBe body

[Youri Ashton]

I had my own questions regarding the new rules, this specifically because it could possibly be a complete show stopper for 2 teams that do Vocaloid shows. No sexual content at all attached nor done in private. Allow me to explain.

I have been in SL for a very long time, this not being my first avi nor my last. I have been working as volunteer since the start up to 2011. I was pretty much always at all open office meetings, did translations, bug hunts, testing and many more things. Even got forceported to hidden sims to lunch with several Linden's during that time. So I think in that regard I have done a lot for SL and LL alike. Always free, never got anything for it even if I did 18 hours a day very often, even in the weekend.

However these days I am with a group called Anime Stars, we are a Vocaloid group that does full shows, see link below to get a idea of what we are doing. Now with that said, we put in months of time to get a single show ready so it's as good as it gets. A true work of love and passion. Not because of sexual reasons, we just love to make our shows and share our work with the fans. So it's strict dancing and promoting the Vocaloids. All donations go into the next show and a part towards the performers on stage.
Official Anime Stars Website

Now is of course the trouble that some vocaloids are according to official sources underaged, but then again these vocaloids are also robots. So technically humanoid robots that just perform on a stage to dance and sing. Very simply translated into words. Please do note ALL members are 19+ IRL.  Some examples:

Hatsune Miku Is officially 16 years old
Kagamine Rin & Len are both 14 years old

These are probably the most well known ones. However others are well older then 20 years. Some vocaloids are even in their 40's. Meiko for example is in her early 40's. Yet things are not as easily defined as there are vocaloids that are technically speaking  1 year old but are robots. This makes me wonder what counts as against the rules regarding this. Further more, how about length? Age regardless of whether it's human or robot?

We do get to adult sims so far as they are willing to have us and it pays often fairly well. These new rules may cause us to get banned for that reason. This would be a major issue obviously

I am perfectly fine with getting rid of minors and child avitars, however regarding Vocaloids I do wonder if this would fall under the same rules and if that would be fair or not. Specially as there is no sexual reasoning behind it (unlike the group called Miku Cafe that does handle in sexual acts with Vocaloids that are very clearly underaged and for some reason none of that group really got banned for it...)

The Hatsune Miku World sim is being payed partially by Crypton Media as a official sim, while Crypton Media is not in SL itself we represent their products in a way. There for we can't even do bad things as it would also reflect on Crypton Media.

What I'm trying to say or rather ask with this, is a few things.

1. Are Vocaloids allowed according the new rules? If only the minors in the team technically are against the rules, then would it be ok to age them up so they do follow the rules?

2. Can we do our shows as normal, including adult sims or are we going to be limited in what we can do?

3. How should we proceed knowing based on these new rules we can get banned by performing our shows which is our fear.

4. Why are groups like the following allowed while they do perform sexual acts with vocaloids that are minors and not being banned outright? (note that the same people either own these groups or are part of the groups, many are even bots). I will be naming a few only. The owner, who uses multiple avatars for these groups, did get warned by Crypton Media for their actions before. These are NOT official nor part of Crypton Media as they do claim.
Hatsune Miku Fanatics 
Hatsune Miku and the Vocaloids SL 
Hatsune.Miku 
HatsuneMiku (AnastasiyaSatana) 
HatsuneMiku 
Cgclub.net

5. Would it be a option for Linden Lab to visit us to talk about the new rules and explain things where needed?
English and Japanese would be very much appreciated. Specially to understand things better and to what degree we would be going against the rules to see what we can do about that if any problem at all.

I do hope to hear back soon as we have some panic in the ranks and this right before major events.

[MissSweetViolet]

Just now, Starberry Passion said:

She's suppose to be a toddler since that's the BeBe body

Which BeBe body though? They have a baby/toddler body, and a youth body for age 5 ish to 11 ish.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

2 minutes ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

This addresses part of my question BUT what if there is a A-rated club (or M-rated for that matter)  that allows child avi looking avatars to be there because they have determined that they are not a child avi.  I was at a club today where clearly the avatar looked like a "teen". Their profile said otherwise but they still looked like one, wearing just a skimpy thong bikini with the "package" clearly shown.  I guess this is where the 16-25 year old range might fall. 

Also how is a owner of a region to know if that avi is in compliance and wearing a body or skin with a modesty layer?

What's to stop me (I wouldn't) from opening a M-rated region and allowing child avi's to be there and not have to be in compliance?

I just see a lot of reasons for this to be hidden more now instead of the problem being dealt with.

I think some of this is certainly a bit ambiguous -- as, really, all of this is to some degree, because someone is often going to have to make a judgement call.

Given that it does involve judgement, I'd hope that LL would focus on the avatar owner and not the club owner. Is that cute girl in ponytails sucking on a pacifier and blowing snot bubbles (I added the latter because it's a favourite of @Rowan Amore) a child? Or an adult engaged in deliberate self-infantilization? If it's at all open to debate, LL should probably not punish the landowner, I think. (Unless, perhaps, it keeps happening again and again?)

I don't think the presence or absence of modesty layers can be seen as a landowner's responsibility, as there is literally no way them to be certain, especially if BoM clothing is also being worn.