So what changed in the Terms of Service?

[Youri Ashton]

6 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Yes, it very much is discrimination based on looks and has been that way as.long as I've been in SL.  The new rules may make it worse.  Region owners have always had the last word in who or what they allow.  One place I visited years ago did not allow human male avatars but did allow human females.  Some don't allow male avatars at all.  

Regardless.of what others in this thread have implied, I have no problem with petite females.  Those that use them to hover near the line of what is and isn't adult...yeah those are the ones people take issue with.

Think we can all agree with "ban the pedo's" thing, no one except them will disagree on that.
Problem is you still have the anime/manga community that will get hit hard because of this, even if they don't do anything wrong. This aside from the Asians who generally look younger to start with and are smaller. And as I already said we still have people with disabilities, such as dwarfism for example, who probably get a serious problem as well. Which clearly doesn't make things easier if rules like these appear, regardless of how well they were meant. I think a revision of the rules might be in order to make sure people don't end up getting banned because of griefers falsely accusing random people. Even if claims are this will be handled by case on case situation, you still keep those that slip trough the cracks so to speak and get banned for no reason.

I use often Kemono body and M4 head myself, just as my friends. We don't do sexual things at all. Unless you count in greeting hugs. but yet we do get issues from people who don't like the theme and rather cause trouble thinking we play underaged characters. So yes, things will get a lot worse if these rules are indeed set loose on the grid.

[Katherine Heartsong]

1 hour ago, Ayashe Ninetails said:

Not according to the TOS. It needs to be baked into the skin or body itself. How they'll police that is a whole other question, but:

"Child avatar content creators are required to add a modesty layer which is baked into child avatar skins or bodies, is not transparent, does not match the skin tone, and may not be removed."

That's how I'm reading it.

Child avatars that are sold will have a permanent skin on their body without any hint of sexual organs and a modesty layer drawn on. Hopefully in a wide range of tones they could apply via HUD (both the skin and the modesty layer). And the body is not BOM. Think Barbie doll skin (not shape).

[MissSweetViolet]

1 minute ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Hmm, now that I think of it, the ToS change will "kill" the "Family-Friendly Nude Beach" business.

I shall not shed a tear for them.  They can put up signs, "no nude children".

Are children even allowed at such places even if the child is fully-clothed now?

If they are they shouldn't be. It took forever to get rid of a "family friendly, Children ok" [was in their description] nudist group that owned a parcel near my house even after reporting they were their several months and I still don't know if they got removed or simply left, but ether way good riddance.

[Youri Ashton]

4 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Hmm, now that I think of it, the ToS change will "kill" the "Family-Friendly Nude Beach" business.

I shall not shed a tear for them.  They can put up signs, "no nude children".

Are children even allowed at such places even if the child is fully-clothed now?

Even if children are fully dressed, I rather say no child avi's there at all. It's a 18+ zone for a reason.

[Starberry Passion]

1 minute ago, Youri Ashton said:

Think we can all agree with "ban the pedo's" thing, no one except them will disagree on that.
Problem is you still have the anime/manga community that will get hit hard because of this, even if they don't do anything wrong. This aside from the Asians who generally look younger to start with and are smaller. And as I already said we still have people with disabilities, such as dwarfism for example, who probably get a serious problem as well. Which clearly doesn't make things easier if rules like these appear, regardless of how well they were meant. I think a revision of the rules might be in order to make sure people don't end up getting banned because of griefers falsely accusing random people. Even if claims are this will be handled by case on case situation, you still keep those that slip trough the cracks so to speak and get banned for no reason.

I use often Kemono body and M4 head myself, just as my friends. We don't do sexual things at all. Unless you count in greeting hugs. but yet we do get issues from people who don't like the theme and rather cause trouble thinking we play underaged characters. So yes, things will get a lot worse if these rules are indeed set loose on the grid.

Kemono wasn't made to be a child avatar, however; people felt like it was because of its tininess and the anime heads. The anime community bodies have a cuteness to them and anime heads are, often, cat like or doll like, making it appear youhful and that's what happened Because of the big eyes, cat-like features, small body the community deemed it a child by look.

[Coffee Pancake]

18 minutes ago, MinkBlueleaf Fyrewik said:

Don't take this wrong way but Linden Lab has already said they ain't gunner clear it up. "Creating a list of specifications for something like this can be a slippery slope, and we certainly don’t want to give out directions on how to circumvent any policies." 

 

This presumes guilt. Why are you wanting people banned by accident for breaking rules with unknowable criteria.

The rules make specific requirements, yet leave it up to the user to guess.

There is a speed limit and a cop. Good luck.

 

[Leslie Trihey]

3 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

NO IT DOESN'T.

It punishes the over-entitled pint sized anti-adult-activities walking ToS violations who used to attack adult parcels., and others who look just like them.

 

This is just stage one, today they punish the walking ToS violations, but we're still waiting for the OTHERR shoe to drop.

The one where they impose some draconian checks on those of us who are not part of the walking ToS Violation community, EVERYONE ELSE..

 

We're all going to get slammed for the "non-rights" of a noisy over-entitled minority who should NEVER have been allowed oon A Rated land in the first place.

 

As somebody who has been an admin on A rated land, I STOPPED caring about the butthurt of Walking ToS Violation avatars years ago, when I realised just how many of them were willing to spend as long as you could stomach them prattling, trying to defend theirr fraudulent claims that the parcel owners rules and LL ToS somehow magically didn't apply to their over entitled little butts, because "My Little Paedo-Bait - 10 Year old Japanese Comic Book streetwalkers  are MAGIC!".

 

Now, for whatever time is left before LL drop the anti-adult "other shoe", A rated admins can relax, as they no longer have to listen to an hour of pathetic laughable excuses for breaking the ToS, and can instead simply go straight to "Abuse Report, Ban, and Puntkick home"

 

Bliss!

 

And for the record, I've spent more than 8 years  in SL being 1) less than 7 ft tall ( my avi is 5'7" in flat feet, 6'1" in 6 " heels, so the same height as my FirstLife avi ), 2) not a "Kupra Karen", and NEVER been accused of having a child avatar, so no, the whining pro Walking ToS violation members of the Campaign for Real Height, who constantly kvetch about female avatars over 5'4" being "giants, are not "in danger".

 

 

I don't care about adult Sims, nudity or anything else your kvetching about in regards to child avatars. I laid out my concerns clear as day and yall skim past them. Lmao.

[Rowan Amore]

1 minute ago, Youri Ashton said:

Think we can all agree with "ban the pedo's" thing, no one except them will disagree on that.
Problem is you still have the anime/manga community that will get hit hard because of this, even if they don't do anything wrong. This aside from the Asians who generally look younger to start with and are smaller. And as I already said we still have people with disabilities, such as dwarfism for example, who probably get a serious problem as well. Which clearly doesn't make things easier if rules like these appear, regardless of how well they were meant. I think a revision of the rules might be in order to make sure people don't end up getting banned because of griefers falsely accusing random people. Even if claims are this will be handled by case on case situation, you still keep those that slip trough the cracks so to speak and get banned for no reason.

I use often Kemono body and M4 head myself, just as my friends. We don't do sexual things at all. Unless you count in greeting hugs. but yet we do get issues from people who don't like the theme and rather cause trouble thinking we play underaged characters. So yes, things will get a lot worse if these rules are indeed set loose on the grid.

There's a man who frequents a club that I go to.  He's about 1/2 my size and I'm not tall at all.  He looks like a adult male other than his height and no one has a problem with that.  One can represent as an Asian or Little person without looking like a child.

 

[MinkBlueleaf Fyrewik]

3 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

 

This presumes guilt. Why are you wanting people banned by accident for breaking rules with unknowable criteria.

The rules make specific requirements, yet leave it up to the user to guess.

There is a speed limit and a cop. Good luck.

 

Um, I don't want people banned by accident for breaking rules with unknowable criteria. I was quoting Linden Lab.

Edited May 3 by MinkBlueleaf Fyrewik
clarification

[Youri Ashton]

2 minutes ago, Starberry Passion said:

Kemono wasn't made to be a child avatar, however; people felt like it was because of its tininess and the anime heads. The anime community bodies have a cuteness to them and anime heads are, often, cat like or doll like, making it appear youhful and that's what happened Because of the big eyes, cat-like features, small body the community deemed it a child by look.

Which is part of the problem, people judging on something that isn't a child avi and yet refusing to listen. This causes more problems and specially with the new rules.

[Youri Ashton]

2 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

There's a man who frequents a club that I go to.  He's about 1/2 my size and I'm not tall at all.  He looks like a adult male other than his height and no one has a problem with that.  One can represent as an Asian or Little person without looking like a child.

 

Happy this guy doesn't seem to get that bad treatment. Unfortunately there are quite a few that do get that. We need to get rid of that hate, not add to it in my opinion.

[Kris Spade]

23 hours ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

The Child Avatar policy says that "child avatar content creators" must add a modesty layer.  It says nothing about existing child avatar bodies and people using those without a modesty layer.

 

ETA:  Correction -- The FAQ covers this:

This response is still pretty grey area.  When reading the TOS updates from the blog post, it did specifically target content creators making/marketing skins to child avatars explaining that a modesty layer must be added to such products.  I didn't see anywhere where it said end users (avatars) must change their skin if it does not have a modesty layer.  It DOES say a child avatar can't be fully nude (which I agree with 100%) but is there an actual problem with child avatars using mesh clothes with either the groin area being alpha'd out or using BoM underpants underneath?  This isn't something anybody can derender since the server side baking update.

[Coffee Pancake]

1 minute ago, MinkBlueleaf Fyrewik said:

Um, I don't want people banned by accident for breaking rules with unknowable criteria.

Then it's not unreasonable to expect LL to clarify the policies where requested.

It is not assisting anyone to circumvent anything. There is a hard line, we just wish to know where that line is.

Standing next to the line should be perfectly fine. If it isn't, then the line has been placed incorrectly.

 

 

[Starberry Passion]

1 minute ago, Youri Ashton said:

Happy this guy doesn't seem to get that bad treatment. Unfortunately there are quite a few that do get that. We need to get rid of that hate, not add to it in my opinion.

Yeah, People who are from Asian, or people who like Asian beauty or people who are Asian American get this treatment, regardless because people always say "child" Asians do have a youthfulness to them and it's heavily discriminated against in Western culture.

[Ayashe Ninetails]

6 minutes ago, Katherine Heartsong said:

That's how I'm reading it.

Child avatars that are sold will have a permanent skin on their body without any hint of sexual organs and a modesty layer drawn on. Hopefully in a wide range of tones they could apply via HUD (both the skin and the modesty layer). And the body is not BOM. Think Barbie doll skin (not shape).

I'm hoping we'll start seeing some creator thoughts on this soon. Perhaps hearing one or two skin/body makers say they'll come up with a solution - even something temporary but within the rules - might help some people feel less stressed out.

I get it - I have at least 30 very different looks/avatars I put together over the years (none subject to these new rules, thankfully) and I'd hate to lose content for any of them for any reason.

[Zalificent Corvinus]

3 minutes ago, Leslie Trihey said:

I don't care about adult Sims, nudity or anything else your kvetching about in regards to child avatars. I laid out my concerns clear as day and yall skim past them. Lmao.

Wrong, I actually read all of your clear-as-day garbage-posts.

I just don't care because your main concerns are blatantly inane, or defending the "poor little darlings" that as a sim admin I've learned the hard way are NOTHING BUT TROUBLE.

 

One of your "concerns" was that utter tripe about females under 7 ft tall having to live in fear of being constantly abuse reported for being children.

 

I've spent more than 8 years being well under 7 ft, and NEVER had a problem with that. EVER. Nor has anyone I have known in the last 8 years. EVER.

 

[MissSweetViolet]

1 minute ago, Ayashe Ninetails said:

I'm hoping we'll start seeing some creator thoughts on this soon. Perhaps hearing one or two skin/body makers say they'll come up with a solution - even something temporary but within the rules - might help some people feel less stressed out.

I get it - I have at least 30 very different looks/avatars I put together over the years (none subject to these new rules, thankfully) and I'd hate to lose content for any of them for any reason.

Part of the issue is the rules for what the modesty layer should look like haven't been given out. The creator at TD was expressing this yesterday in their Discord. She received no notice from LL [found out through the announcement I believe.] She was working on trying to implement a fix that wouldn't break content [or at least as little as possible], and was ready to start, but has been given no guideline on what to cover. So if even the creators don't know what this layer should look like, where are we?

[Rowan Amore]

It's time for.one of these...

[Wincil]

Then again Anime styled avatar's seen to get hated on a lot unfortunately People have been falsely banned for nothing before some people seen to make garbage claims. 

Edited May 3 by Wincil

[Coffee Pancake]

2 minutes ago, MissSweetViolet said:

Part of the issue is the rules for what the modesty layer should look like haven't been given out. The creator at TD was expressing this yesterday in their Discord. She received no notice from LL [found out through the announcement I believe.] She was working on trying to implement a fix that wouldn't break content [or at least as little as possible], and was ready to start, but has been given no guideline on what to cover. So if even the creators don't know what this layer should look like, where are we?

So here we are .. 

A body creator can push out an update, get it wrong .. and get all their customers forever and irrevocably banned.

Awesome. This shouldn't be hard.

Edited May 3 by Coffee Pancake

[Starberry Passion]

Just now, Wincil said:

Then again Anime styled avatar's seen to get hated on a lot unfortunately People have been falsely banned for ***** before.

Because Western civilization equate cuteness to child, unfortunately. If it's cute, it's going to be perceived as child so your best bet is to be in a sim where there are other Anime avatars.

[Leslie Trihey]

3 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

Wrong, I actually read all of your clear-as-day garbage-posts.

I just don't care because your main concerns are blatantly inane, or defending the "poor little darlings" that as a sim admin I've learned the hard way are NOTHING BUT TROUBLE.

 

One of your "concerns" was that utter tripe about females under 7 ft tall having to live in fear of being constantly abuse reported for being children.

 

I've spent more than 8 years being well under 7 ft, and NEVER had a problem with that. EVER. Nor has anyone I have known in the last 8 years. EVER.

 

Good for you lol. Oh by the way you don't have to spin tall tails about "walking tos-violations assaulting your land" or whatever. Land owners have always had the right to ban anyone, for any reason. So you can cut out the malarkey.

[Wincil]

9 minutes ago, Starberry Passion said:

Because Western civilization equate cuteness to child, unfortunately. If it's cute, it's going to be perceived as child so your best bet is to be in a sim where there are other Anime avatars.

Again not everyone sees it that way cuteness itself isn't necessary a bad thing it doesn't always equate to a child this is more of a genetic trait. *facepalms*

Edited May 3 by Wincil

[Daniel Regenbogen]

14 minutes ago, Katherine Heartsong said:

Yup. It's forbidden by the ToS you agree to when you use SL. No child avatars on A-rated land. What is the point of keeping bringing intent/actions up? Intent, adult or not, does not matter.

Not permitting child avis on A-rated lands is about the simplest way to address bad actors, and whatever LL needs to address, given the whole BoM loophole that still needs addressing/explaining and potential lack of updated child avatars available that meet the other requirements being brought into force.

The point is to make people and maybe even some Lindens thinking again about a) what they want to accomplish, b) what side effects it has and c) if it leads to what they want at all. This is an open forum, so deal with people having other opinions than you.

LL's rules are not fixed in stone, so there *is* a chance that some real thinking might happen, that this "Let's do something just for being able to say that we did something." might not be the last word. As the one who came up with the idea of Kids5B as answer to the kid avatar ban at SL5B I know that even LL sometimes takes things back after realizing that they are contra productive.

The "real kid avatars" were always some of the most anti-pedo groups, just out of the need to protect themselves against prejudice and knee jerk reactions by LL. But once again they are targetted, by rules that are doing *nothing* to get rid of pedos.

[Starberry Passion]

1 minute ago, Wincil said:

Again not everyone sees it that way. 

I didn't say they did, but Second Life is in America and mostly Americans and Europeans play this, therefor the majority, especially because most are above 35 or 45, will see it as something cute and equate it to child.