So what changed in the Terms of Service?

[Lilbap]

May the cardboard box robots rise!

 

Its my go-to shopping avi now.

[Love Zhaoying]

2 minutes ago, Wincil said:

What? that's not really positive anime culture.

* throws up hands * I am referring to YOUR support of positive anime depiction. It is good. Not bad. Good thing is good. Good thing make happy. Good thing not threat. Good, happy, thanks for good thing.

[Wincil]

11 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

* throws up hands * I am referring to YOUR support of positive anime depiction. It is good. Not bad. Good thing is good. Good thing make happy. Good thing not threat. Good, happy, thanks for good thing.

Oh I must of misread doh. 

Edited May 4 by Wincil

[Arwyn Quandry]

Still curious how this is going to impact teen avatars who RP as under 18 but don't wear skins or clothing from "child" avatar creators...

[Qie Niangao]

1 minute ago, Jaylinbridges said:

If you feel the entire report was "Bogus", then tell me why LL management conducted an investigation, AND are making the following changes, based on their findings after investigating the Medium report issues?  I don't think you read it all very carefully. Following is from Oberwolf Linden's Blog letter yesterday:

The findings did highlight opportunities for improvement. As a result, we are making updates to our internal policies to raise the standard for how Linden employees should respectfully engage with community members. This addresses multiple forms of engagement including how we present ourselves, how we interact with the community (even in moments of conflict), and how we minimize the perception of conflict of interest and favoritism in our interactions. Additionally, there have been specific actions we have initiated or finalized:

• Updated our Child Avatar Policy 
• Updated our internal Policies and Procedures
• Implemented personnel changes
• Initiated management improvement programs
• Committed to Community Roundtables (see below)
• Committed to increased transparency and accountability

Of course I read all that. I thought it was self-explanatory: They need to re-establish trust after many residents fell for the smear campaign. (And undoubtedly it presented opportunities for personnel change—but you've seen the management chart, so what were those changes?)

[Arielle Popstar]

I'm thinking we are so caught up in this Child-hater vs Children debate that maybe we are missing what the Lab is aiming to do. It struck me this morning that if I wanted to clean up the grid, I would start with new policies regarding underage avatars to make them acceptable by removing their genitals, covering them with modesty layers and make policies that limits their access to adult areas, just like IMVU has done for ages. This is exactly what the Lab has done and along with a few other content access changes for the MP, they could open to real children that are under 18 or even under 16. Just like some of their big competitors Roblox, Imvu, Sims etc. This would give them access to a huge new market of virtual Barbie girl and Ken shoppers. Along with the Mobile Viewer this would actually be a good move for them though it may result in some adult restrictions too as they would not want to expose the real kiddies to some of the lower life forms existing in SL. Furries and furry sex will probably have to go but that should be even easier to get rid of then the child appearing adults they are currently aiming at.

This may actually not be the first change to the tos as it relates to current residents but that more will be planned to drive the SL platform to clean up its image and allow entry to an even younger market.

[LittleMe Jewell]

4 hours ago, Phil Deakins said:

Sorry. I'm not intentionally trivialising anything. It's just that I don't see how any child avatar can't comply with the new rules right now. It seems to me that simply not being naked covers it all.

 

It has to do with the wording about the modesty layer:

 

Yes, BOM undies would keep the avatar from ever being nude to others and SHOULD suffice, but the above wording says differently because the child wearing the undies can remove them.  

[Innula Zenovka]

1 hour ago, Qie Niangao said:

Yeah. I promised myself never to discuss this again, but I just can't get it out of my head: Who will know including Governance that I'm wearing a verboten skin under an alpha mask rather than the modesty-patched version of that skin under the same alpha mask? So why should anybody need a new, approved skin instead of a decent alpha mask? How could anybody or anything beyond the baking service know the difference?

The only way I've been able to make any sense of this is if all potentially child-representing avatars are replaced by a new generation with a non-BOM lowest texture layer. But of course that doesn't actually prevent anything because "anything" can be layered on top, unless these avatars prevent the use of any skins at all.

Maybe the intention behind this somewhat sweeping rule is to prohibit nude child avatars.   In the normal course of events it's going to catch only things like "family friendly" nude beaches, which have always been an issue in the past, but it places the onus firmly on the child avatar not to appear nude in public.   

[Ingrid Ingersoll]

6 minutes ago, Jaylinbridges said:

 we are making updates to our internal policies to raise the standard for how Linden employees should respectfully engage with community members. This addresses multiple forms of engagement including how we present ourselves, how we interact with the community (even in moments of conflict), and how we minimize the perception of conflict of interest and favoritism in our interactions. 

Also good news! Thanks, I had not read that. 

[Starberry Passion]

5 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

I'm thinking we are so caught up in this Child-hater vs Children debate that maybe we are missing what the Lab is aiming to do. It struck me this morning that if I wanted to clean up the grid, I would start with new policies regarding underage avatars to make them acceptable by removing their genitals, covering them with modesty layers and make policies that limits their access to adult areas, just like IMVU has done for ages. This is exactly what the Lab has done and along with a few other content access changes for the MP, they could open to real children that are under 18 or even under 16. Just like some of their big competitors Roblox, Imvu, Sims etc. This would give them access to a huge new market of virtual Barbie girl and Ken shoppers. Along with the Mobile Viewer this would actually be a good move for them though it may result in some adult restrictions too as they would not want to expose the real kiddies to some of the lower life forms existing in SL. Furries and furry sex will probably have to go but that should be even easier to get rid of then the child appearing adults they are currently aiming at.

This may actually not be the first change to the tos as it relates to current residents but that more will be planned to drive the SL platform to clean up its image and allow entry to an even younger market.

Furry community is a big part of second life. A few of the Lindens are Furry avatars. Also, if they got rid of Furries, that would be bad for business.

Second life is all inclusive, it will stop being all inclusive and diverse if they rid themselves of any group.

Edited May 4 by Starberry Passion

[Lilbap]

5 hours ago, Phil Deakins said:

It's just that I don't see how any child avatar can't comply with the new rules right now.

Wouldn't be HARD if they showed us EXAMPLES.

[Neness Renard]

What changes? My account is blocked because I can't read the window... Please Second Life, change this system because many users can no longer connect to the grid.

[Arielle Popstar]

1 minute ago, Starberry Passion said:

Furry community is a big part of second life. A few of the Lindens are Furry avatars. Also, if they got rid of Furries, that would be bad for business.

Second life is all inclusive, it will stop being all inclusive and diverse if they rid themselves of any group.

They stopped being all inclusive already with this latest policy change. 

Is the furry community any bigger then the underage appearing community? Some of the Moles certainly looked like they were wearing underage avatars but that didn't stop management from changing the rules.

[Qie Niangao]

1 minute ago, Innula Zenovka said:

Maybe the intention behind this somewhat sweeping rule is to prohibit nude child avatars.   In the normal course of events it's going to catch only things like "family friendly" nude beaches, which have always been an issue in the past, but it places the onus firmly on the child avatar not to appear nude in public.   

Oh, I'm sure that's the objective, and I have no problem with that objective at all. And I'll even grant (and did so, somewhere) that making it a requirement to procure a whole new skin serves a communication purpose—god knows it's got people talking about it in this thread—it's just that mechanically, it makes no sense.

[Rowan Amore]

25 minutes ago, Wincil said:

Peoples bodies can change  and people can grow even into their 20's

sometimes 25 it depends on the person some people can grow until they're like 19/20 sometimes

tbh idk are they bringing up teenagers so much

I think that's self projection people who probably are a pedophile

that's like saying 15 year olds and 18+ are the same. 

And there in lies the problem.  Some 15 yr olds have bodies like 20 somethings and some 20 somethings have bodies like a 15 yr old making the face and overall look of an avatar more important, IMO.  

How LL will determine what age an avatar appears is anyone's guess.

My best friend in RL has the body of a 12 yr old even after 2 kids.  Her face, however, looks like an adult

[BilliJo Aldrin]

9 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

I'm thinking we are so caught up in this Child-hater vs Children debate that maybe we are missing what the Lab is aiming to do. It struck me this morning that if I wanted to clean up the grid, I would start with new policies regarding underage avatars to make them acceptable by removing their genitals, covering them with modesty layers and make policies that limits their access to adult areas, just like IMVU has done for ages. This is exactly what the Lab has done and along with a few other content access changes for the MP, they could open to real children that are under 18 or even under 16. Just like some of their big competitors Roblox, Imvu, Sims etc. This would give them access to a huge new market of virtual Barbie girl and Ken shoppers. Along with the Mobile Viewer this would actually be a good move for them though it may result in some adult restrictions too as they would not want to expose the real kiddies to some of the lower life forms existing in SL. Furries and furry sex will probably have to go but that should be even easier to get rid of then the child appearing adults they are currently aiming at.

This may actually not be the first change to the tos as it relates to current residents but that more will be planned to drive the SL platform to clean up its image and allow entry to an even younger market.

lol that whole thing is effed up. if all this happens its buhbye second life it was nice knowing you 😂

[Rowan Amore]

20 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

But again, the complete baked BOM surface—alpha mask, system skin, tattoos, texture underwear, the whole shebang—rezzes whether on mesh or the system body. There just is no BOM layer underneath another BOM layer.

(Tangent: That's true even if wearing multiple onion-skin mesh layers all painted with the system BOM textures: each layer would necessarily end up baked the same. I guess some theoretical body could use distinct alpha cut patterns on different onion-skin layers, but seems extreme. I mean, one could concoct a special mesh UV that paints forbidden pixels on the skirt UV placed inappropriately, but that's going way down the rabbit hole.)

I'm not talking a BoM layer skin tattoo or universal layer.  The old time system skin which becomes BoM when you are wearing a mesh body.  I use the system layer skin from Velour and not their tattoo option.  When I arrive somewhere and not one dang thing rezzes aside from that ugly old system body, it's covered with my Velour skin.  If it had modesty panels on it, you'd see those as well.  

Edited May 4 by Rowan Amore

[Starberry Passion]

1 minute ago, Arielle Popstar said:

They stopped being all inclusive already with this latest policy change. 

Is the furry community any bigger then the underage appearing community? Some of the Moles certainly looked like they were wearing underage avatars but that didn't stop management from changing the rules.

But they didn't get rid of child avatars, they're just putting them under modesty.

Furries (not including furry cubs) are just humanoid adults represented by different animals other than a primate.

Both are still included, just child presenting avatars are now just censored. 

[Arielle Popstar]

Just now, BilliJo Aldrin said:

lol that whole thing is effed up. if all this happens its buhbye second life it was nice knowing you 😂

Nah they would have the potential of a whole new market to replace us decrepit and jaded residents.

[Vivienne Schell]

12 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

Of course I read all that. I thought it was self-explanatory: They need to re-establish trust after many residents fell for the smear campaign. (And undoubtedly it presented opportunities for personnel change—but you've seen the management chart, so what were those changes?)

I doubt that the one matter (Allegations) is connected to the other (Child Avatar Policies).

[Anna Salyx]

3 minutes ago, Jaylinbridges said:

If you feel the entire report was "Bogus", then tell me why LL management conducted an investigation, AND are making the following changes, based on their findings after investigating the Medium report issues?  I don't think you read it all very carefully. Following is from Oberwolf Linden's Blog letter yesterday:

The findings did highlight opportunities for improvement. As a result, we are making updates to our internal policies to raise the standard for how Linden employees should respectfully engage with community members. This addresses multiple forms of engagement including how we present ourselves, how we interact with the community (even in moments of conflict), and how we minimize the perception of conflict of interest and favoritism in our interactions. Additionally, there have been specific actions we have initiated or finalized:

• Updated our Child Avatar Policy 
• Updated our internal Policies and Procedures
• Implemented personnel changes
• Initiated management improvement programs
• Committed to Community Roundtables (see below)
• Committed to increased transparency and accountability

Investigate for propriety's sake would be a number one reason.  Bogus or not the allegations were raised and no matter how potentially spurious, performance investigation must be done at a minimum.  But since there was a big spotlight, more than token review was/is warranted. 

second point: no system is immune from having opportunities for improvement revealed. An investiation, no matter the underlying reason would have brought these things to light.  They might have come to light on their own in time. With pure speculation on my part, I suspect that most of the internal, personnel changes involved more clearly defined borderlines between functional groups. More clearly defined borderlines between Lab employees and departments and the customer base. More clearly defined boundaries in the chain of command vis a vis interpersonal relationships within the organization. Policies, that in the recent past, may have had a more laissez-faire atmosphere now being more clearly expressed and codified.  Better define management roles and responsibilities. etc. More transparency is definitely on deck at least in the short term future. Not that there was any serious or nefarious wrongdoings, but that "areas of improvement were brought to light and they are doing something.  And since the light is shining, let's just be more open about it now at this time."

That's all just my take from having spent 25 years in corporate life.  Things are always changing.  sometimes those changes get a more public eye on them, sometimes they go by unnoticed. but nothing is ever static (for good or for ill.  I hate bungee bosses and dotted lines bosses btw)

[Arielle Popstar]

1 minute ago, Starberry Passion said:

But they didn't get rid of child avatars, they're just putting them under modesty.

Furries (not including furry cubs) are just humanoid adults represented by different animals other than a primate.

Both are still included, just child presenting avatars are now just censored. 

If they were wanting to clean up the grid as this first step seems to indicate, then there is a chance that that will also follow at some point.

[Love Zhaoying]

11 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

Maybe the intention behind this somewhat sweeping rule is to prohibit nude child avatars.   In the normal course of events it's going to catch only things like "family friendly" nude beaches, which have always been an issue in the past, but it places the onus firmly on the child avatar not to appear nude in public.   

That's my understanding too.

[LittleMe Jewell]

3 hours ago, AmeliaJ08 said:

I have to ask...

If a skin is required to have a modesty patch why is it the requirement instead of just BOM underwear? both are possible to swap for something and yet this seems to be the justification behind disallowing BOM underwear.

I'm probably missing something. If removal of choice is the intention though... skins are changeable.

 

I thought the same for quite a while, but after thinking about it:

The goal of the pedophile is to have sexual encounters with what they perceive as a child.  If the 'child' is willing, the child could be coerced into removing their BOM undies, letting the perv fantasize easier.  With a skin or body that never allows the undies to go away, the perv will have a harder time fantasizing about it.

So, it seems to be mostly about making things harder on the pedophiles.

Edited May 4 by LittleMe Jewell

[Starberry Passion]

1 minute ago, Arielle Popstar said:

If they were wanting to clean up the grid as this first step seems to indicate, then there is a chance that that will also follow at some point.

Why would they censor furries at some point though?