So what changed in the Terms of Service?

[Arielle Popstar]

1 minute ago, Rowan Amore said:

Q: Will Residents be immediately terminated if it is determined they are violating any part of the new policy?

A: Not all violations of the policy will result in an immediate termination. Depending upon the nature and severity of the violation, Governance has a suspension tree that is utilized to make attempts to educate the Resident first. However, if those attempts fail and the behavior is continued, it will result in termination. For the more severe offenses, the immediate action will still be to terminate their access to Second Life.

Ok thanks. I wonder what qualifies as the more severe offenses because from a couple of banned accounts I had heard they were never warned ahead of time and were never allowed to defend against the charges. They also mentioned they didn't engage with anyone sexually that there might be a log implicating them in that sort of behaviour.

[brodiac90]

I'd like to summarise as follows: 

• No kid I know (including myself) is against the ban on kids in adult land or pretty much 99.9% of what the new policy states. 
• Nudity beaches were always sick - those who go there, kids and adults alike, should be burned and banned.
• The modesty layer in of itself is a good idea (even if it makes you feel icky that you need it). Many kids already wear some form of unoffical modestly layer in the form of BOM undies - I certainly do. 
• LL need to clarify what is acceptable and what they want content creators to make. 
•  LL needs to look into whether what they're asking content creators to create is even possible. The major issue here being that the modesty layer MUST never be able to be removed. If a solution to this can't be reached then LL has defacto banned child avis in all but name and has made years worth of content costing thousands effectively worthless.  

[Rowan Amore]

Just now, Stephanie Misfit said:

I would say those people participating in this thread who have child like avatars, and profiles that say they are into BDSM, could find themselves on the "serious offense" side of things.

True but those child avatars concerned about the modesty panels probably don't need to be too concerned right now.  It's 2 months until they say they will enforce.and probably a grace period after.that depending on how much content becomes available with those panels.

[Anna Salyx]

ooof.

Let me join in the chorus of other who have proclaimed getting caught up.  66 pages, started reading a several hours ago. I had 13 quote reply along the way but removed most of them as being a) I forgot what point I was going to add b) my points had been addressed by others, and c) fatigue.

 

6 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

This is interesting because it is "at odds" with the TOS statement someone copied earlier that said there must be a modesty layer for the body OR skin.

This is an example where the FAQ's don't really line up well with the TOS statements, and are adding to the confusion and concerns.

I agree that some clarification is going to be needed a lot on this issue, but my own take on it is that if the content creator is making the actual body that a modesty layer that sits above skin and tatoo needs to be permanently attached to the mesh, or simply disallow BOM completely and make a skin with the modesty baked on. 

OR

for content creators that are making more youth oriented/specific skins only that are specifically created to "de-age" some of the other more mainstream bodies by significantly  de-emphasizing the chest and waist/hip areas (among others) by adjusting the light/shadows shadings in those areas would have to bake modesty layers onto those skins. 

(Disclaimer here.  I have no idea if there are content creators doing this, this is just supposition on my part. I remember the days before mesh bodies where a thing and skin makers did all sorts of tricks to create the illusion of body contours that really weren't there all that much with just shadows and highlights, so my logical leap is that there quite possibly be skin makers who use the same tricks to create more youthful looks for that market. )

Now granted in in this second case it'd fall completely to the end user that uses them to not try to get around the modesty blocks by other means, but the skin maker would themselves be in compliance.  

But that is how I am personally interpreting that "OR" clause in the FAQ.

 

Edited May 4 by Anna Salyx
just to add that wow 1.5 pages flew past just as I was typing all that out. :P

[Vivienne Schell]

5 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I'm concerned about people on the thread who mention naked children a whole lot...

Then you also are concerned about Linden Lab who issued the new rules, partially to adress "naked child avatars"? Well, i suggest to focus your psychoanalytic expertise on the Lab Owners. There certainly is something wrong with them. Sick society.

[Ingrid Ingersoll]

3 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

But you only want to discourage them .. by attacking their victims.

What mental gymnastics did you do to get there?

Edited May 4 by Ingrid Ingersoll

[Sparkle Bunny]

2 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

So, in SL here is what you do.

Take your pint sized anti-adult-activities griefer avatar, cut holes in it where the naughty bits that must never bee seen are, cover the holes with built in mesh "modest" underwear.

Make the non naughty bits of the skin bom, make the underwear layers hud textures only, make the whole body NO MOD, ensure NONE of the underwear textures in the hud are "flesh coloured".

Apparently nobody trusts the body creators to do this..

[Luna Bliss]

5 minutes ago, Madi Melodious said:

I just lost someone I was real close to in SL because of this.    They are closing their accounts.  

Did they explain why they're doing this?

[Wincil]

I saw people on the thread who mention naked children a whole lot I think that's concerning. 

[Coffee Pancake]

Just now, Zalificent Corvinus said:

There, does that answer your questions?

Sadly not .. while it seems like it would be compliant and I expect it to be, we can't actually know without someone inside LL commenting. This should not be some mystery, other platforms manage to be specific.

we're not asking to peek into the subjective inner workings of governance, but what the actual criteria for a modesty covering is and who has to wear it.

[Coffee Pancake]

6 minutes ago, Madi Melodious said:

I just lost someone I was real close to in SL because of this.    They are closing their accounts.  

You're not alone in that today

[Luna Bliss]

1 minute ago, Wincil said:

I saw people on the thread who mention naked children a whole lot I think that's concerning. 

Yes I think they tend to do that when they imagine almost all child avatars are in SL for the 'kinky sex'.

[Arielle Popstar]

6 minutes ago, Ingrid Ingersoll said:

Poking at people who support efforts to discourage pedophiles is not a great look. 

Sorry for being a dirty normie?

So far you haven't been discouraging pedophiles, only seeming to be softening up their targets to be more vulnerable.

[Love Zhaoying]

5 minutes ago, Anna Salyx said:

but my own take on it is that if the content creator is making the actual body that a modesty layer that sits above skin and tatoo needs to be permanently attached to the mesh, or simply disallow BOM completely and make a skin with the modesty baked on. 

Thanks, I did not know these approaches were possible. It sure makes sense!

[Rowan Amore]

5 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Ok thanks. I wonder what qualifies as the more severe offenses because from a couple of banned accounts I had heard they were never warned ahead of time and were never allowed to defend against the charges. They also mentioned they didn't engage with anyone sexually that there might be a log implicating them in that sort of behaviour.

The answer was in regards to this specific new policy.  No.idea.if this has always been the case.

I always hear about people who got banned for AP who swear up.and down they never engaged in that behavior.  Not once does anyone say they knew someone who was banned that admitted that's exactly what they did.  I find it extremely hard to fathom that all these people were.banned for no reason.  Seems counterproductive for.the Lab to do that.  

[Coffee Pancake]

4 minutes ago, Sparkle Bunny said:

Apparently nobody trusts the body creators to do this..

From the discussions Ive had today .. creators don't have a clue.

Do they err on the side of caution and make something that trashes vast swathes of their customers inventory, or the other way and risk exposing them to bans for insufficient modesty coverage. They have the exact same guidance we all do.

None.

[Ingrid Ingersoll]

3 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

So far you haven't been discouraging pedophiles.

LL is discouraging pedophiles. It's LL's platform. 

[sirhc DeSantis]

12 minutes ago, Madi Melodious said:

I just lost someone I was real close to in SL because of this.    They are closing their accounts.  

Why?

[Kathlen Onyx]

1 hour ago, Wincil said:

Seriously? isn't that a bit much? I wouldn't say that most people would see my avatar as a child you shouldn't false report people just because of that And I done nothing btw.    

If we are going by your profile picture the YES MOST PEOPLE WILL SEE THAT AS A CHILD. I think your eyes are very skewed.

[Madi Melodious]

3 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

You're not alone in that today

This is what makes me so angry.  They are punishing us for something we didn't do, and they dont' care.  We have been in SL for a years together.  In one stroke they wipe out years worth of content across several accounts.   She said its just not worth it any more.  The thing that angers me the most, they simply don't' care.   We may have small avatars but we do build communities and we do build relations with people.     I think I'm done.

[Love Zhaoying]

People leaving SL over this- you wonder if they don't like the new rules, don't understand the new rules, don't trust the new rules to be applied justly, etc. 

[sirhc DeSantis]

2 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

From the discussions Ive had today .. creators don't have a clue.

Do they err on the side of caution and make something that trashes vast swathes of their customers inventory, or the other way and risk exposing them to bans for insufficient modesty coverage. They have the exact same guidance we all do.

None.

ah capitalism:

[Luna Bliss]

2 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

10 minutes ago, Sparkle Bunny said:

Apparently nobody trusts the body creators to do this..

From the discussions Ive had today .. creators don't have a clue.

Do they err on the side of caution and make something that trashes vast swathes of their customers inventory, or the other way and risk exposing them to bans for insufficient modesty coverage. They have the exact same guidance we all do.

None.

It was a nice new TOS though, very organized, paragraphs defined well, no grammar errors.

[Wincil]

I think it's better to go after actual pedo's not ones that are not. 

[Arielle Popstar]

1 minute ago, Love Zhaoying said:

People leaving SL over this- you wonder if they don't like the new rules, don't understand the new rules, don't trust the new rules to be applied justly, etc. 

Or you are not relating to the implications for the affected avatars?