So what changed in the Terms of Service?

[Love Zhaoying]

3 minutes ago, Leslie Trihey said:

Some people in here, not necessarily you, have incredibly strange idea's what constitutes as a young av. So I wouldn't trust their judgement, like at all. Sorry, not sorry.

It doesn't matter what we think. It matters what the Governance team thinks. They will review each and every AR Report.

What we think is not relevant to the TOS changes.

Also, even if users "think wrongly" about an avatar, users have EVERY RIGHT both before and after the TOS changes, to ban whoever they want from their land.

So again - who cares what people think in this thread about what a "child avatar" looks like?  I mean, YOU seem to care. But why do you care what people think? It doesn't have anything to do with the TOS changes.

[Leslie Trihey]

10 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

I live in Canada Lol. And to be honest with you, our government is so detached from reality. So I wouldn't be surprised that it is a thing. Lol 

I'd have more faith in strange women in lying in ponds distributing swords as a system of government then our current government and possible future government.

Edited May 4 by Leslie Trihey

[Love Zhaoying]

2 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

What has not been said is that in order to be an adult, one must be 7 feet tall with giant boobs and ass or men need to be muscle bound and hairy.

Perhaps they were using "hyperbole".  It's hard to tell!

[Scylla Rhiadra]

9 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

I live in Canada Lol. And to be honest with you, our government is so detached from reality. So I wouldn't be surprised that it is a thing. Lol 

While I'm not exactly a fan of the current government, the Canadian law in question is roughly 22 years old.

Edited May 4 by Scylla Rhiadra
Missing word

[Leslie Trihey]

2 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Yes, how one sees a child avatar is ambiguous.  I've said so myself.  But on the other side, some people also see something as adult.that others do not.  It goes both ways and why it will always be a judgement call for users and LL.

What has not been said is that in order to be an adult, one must be 7 feet tall with giant boobs and ass or men need to be muscle bound and hairy.  Not once, I can guarantee.  THAT is what I took issue with.

Fair.

[Innula Zenovka]

12 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Yes, the ToS is the law here.  The laws in your country and others are probably the reason LL originally implemented the ***** restrictions.

Regardless of what the law says, I can quite see why LL would not want SL to have a reputation as a place where people go to simulate having sex with virtual children. 

And that's nothing to do with whether or not the owners are thinking of selling the business.

Edited May 4 by Innula Zenovka

[Alwin Alcott]

i'm going for a short walk with my doggy for the night... wondering we hit the 100 before i'm back  

[Love Zhaoying]

3 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

11 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

I live in Canada Lol. And to be honest with you, our government is so detached from reality. So I wouldn't be surprised that it is a thing. Lol 

While I'm not exactly a fan of the current government, the Canadian law in question is roughly 22 years old.

It's old enough to drink beer!

[Cindy Evanier]

Can you all slow down?  My chinese takeout just arrived!

[Sammy Huntsman]

2 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

It's old enough to drink beer!

Yeah, I am older than that law by 12 years. Still proves my point about how out of touch with reality the government of Canada is. Lol 

[Leslie Trihey]

2 minutes ago, Cindy Evanier said:

Can you all slow down?  My chinese takeout just arrived!

Did you bring enough to share with the entire class? 😛

[Coffee Pancake]

2 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

Regardless of what the law says, I can quite see why LL would not want SL to have as reputation a place where people go to simulate having sex with virtual children. 

would think that, a very sensible assertion .. but we only got rules as result of the 2007 mess, prior to that and with lots of screaming and arguments .. LL just sat back and pretended they had no idea what was in SL.

There is no agenda to shape the world, only knee jerk policy shifts in response to negative publicity or public criticism.

VRChat are playing the same game .. they haven't had their 2007 moment yet.

[Love Zhaoying]

4 minutes ago, Leslie Trihey said:

7 minutes ago, Cindy Evanier said:

Can you all slow down?  My chinese takeout just arrived!

Did you bring enough to share with the entire class? 😛

Maybe we can at least have the Fortune Cookies.

[Dyna Mole]

OK, gang..   I have just removed a growing off-topic pile-on that seems to have started because of a misreading.  Please do not continue.

[Arielle Popstar]

8 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

While I'm not exactly a fan of the current government, the Canadian law in question is roughly 22 years old.

I'm shocked i tell ya!

There was a case a few years ago where a guy who was crossing the border into Canada was used as a test case of the Law because he had an anime comic on his laptop. Took a bit but it was finally tossed Link

[Love Zhaoying]

2 minutes ago, Dyna Mole said:

OK, gang..   I have just removed a growing off-topic pile-on that seems to have started because of a misreading.  Please do not continue.

Thanks!

[MissSweetViolet]

19 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

This is a completely valid point. LL needs to be clearer about this.

With the exception noted above, I still think these new rules clarify existing ambiguities. As I have said, if I represented as a child, I'd actually feel safer under these new guidelines. They are much less subjective.

LL totally needs to do a better job of communicating this so that the rumour mill doesn't generate a panic. The misinformation and misunderstanding in this thread makes that clear enough, I think.

I am willing to accept that. I don't think it exempts them from rules designed to make everyone a bit safer, though. Again, maybe LL can do a better job of communicating and reassuring everyone that the sky is not falling.

But so far, here, the main objections I've heard to this is 1) skins aren't available (yet), 2) child avis can't go to adult rated areas, and 3) child avatars can't be naked.

None of those is onerous or insurmountable.

I don't think the rules are, though -- such ambiguities that still exist, and such worries -- as for instance ARs -- existed under the old system.

Most of this I agree with, but do want to point out [not just to you because all the posts you've made after this I've mostly agreed with, but a few are implying the whole kid community is against this] that most every child avatar user myself included is glad for the adult parcel retraction and modesty covers. In my opinion it should be that way all along and I've only seen one child avatar user in this thread want to contest that rule. 

What most of us are upset about is the lack of clarity on what LL thinks this should look like. To me a mini shorts layer that covers the groin area seems best, and for teen females something over the chest as well. But is that good enough for SL? Does gender or the age of the avatar even get taken in to account, or all we all forced to look the same? 

Many here are also rightfully concerned about the loss of content. I'm lucky the body I use when in kid form is still supported, some are not and that is a ton of money. what's causing this is the way it's made to sound like it's being implemented, by needed a layer built into the mesh and not removable. I think a skin with built in layer should be good enough, but if they state not removable, then to me, skin doesn't qualify because you can swap a skin.

17 hours ago, brodiac90 said:

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.  

I wish I could have this permanently applied to the top of thread where everyone can see it and reinforced with gorilla glue. This is how most kid avatars feel.

17 hours ago, Anna Salyx said:

That'd be how I do it on the actual body level:  Make the body with the base mesh being all BOM that'd hold skins/tattoo/system layer clothes, make it toggle-able (maybe) for appliers skins.  Then add a block of mesh faces over the top of those areas that require modesty that would be permanently opaque in whatever apropo styling.  Not that hard in the grand scheme of things really. that way it could never be gotten around and it wouldn't depend on skin makers to do the work.

This had been my thought too, I've no clue how else you would do it, if what I assume what they state in the FAQ is what I assume, that it needs to be built into the body.

15 hours ago, Geo Greenwood said:

There was a new announcement from the creator of TWEENSTER, stating that they will be updating Tweenster and skins to comply with this ToS change.
I don't know the specific details of the update, but I feel a little relieved.

As far as I know, child avatars of both genders have not had genitals written on them, and I personally think it's too much to specify that even nipples are adult content.

No mainstream child avatar has genitals, even skins do not. Toddleedoo had some creepy guy last year come in and complain in Discord his avatar had none and asked for them [which everyone found creepy] and the creator flat out told him she does not make them and would not ever be adding that to the avatars.

13 hours ago, Raspberry Crystal said:

I think it would help if the governance team made it clear if they are not composed of USA citizens with a mono-cultural outlook. If they are then I think we need to listen to those from other cultures who feel that their avatar choices are under threat. If someone has an avatar which is intended to be an adult, appears as an adult to others who share that culture, but not to western eyes then this policy is affecting people who are sticking to the rules, but are afraid their actions will be misinterpreted.
I was really concerned to read through reddit threads where asian women have been frightened to log on to SL because their avatar reflects their real-life height and shape.
I also think it would also help if the governance team demonstrated awareness in distinguishing between trans / non-binary avatars and child avatars.
There are communities of non rule breaking second life residents who are being badly affected by these policies and it doesn't do to ignore that.
Even if their fears are unjustified I think some extra consideration needs to be given.

I agree with this.

7 hours ago, Alwin Alcott said:

when you could use the old content with your current skin, i'm pretty sure you can with another one with patch too....

Not true actually for all bodies, if your body is still supported, sure. But if you use one of the non supported ones, all clothing, and skins would be useless, because just like adult avatars, the mesh is rigged per body, the skins of the unsupported ones are applier only as far as I know and the dev kit for the skins was not given out. So you would lose nearly everything.

6 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Irony: if all this plays out a certain way, it could result in GOOD attention for LL:

- False allegations are disproven as false 

- Changes are made to protect our community

- Community comes together and 20+ yo Sl is saved

- Community is safer as a result 

- SL is stronger from it all

- Take that, evil pedos!!

 

I so badly hope this is the case. This would be the best possible outcome.

1 hour ago, Leslie Trihey said:

To me one particular problem stands out from all this:

There is literally no difference between abuse reporting someone not wearing/overriding a modesty layer, and abuse reporting someone not wearing a BOM cover layer. The end result is the same.

The only difference is that the modesty layer will require people to get rid of their old stuff that can't be compliant due to circumstances like the creator not being around anymore. Forcing people to not use/trash stuff they have had for years and payed money for due to circumstances outside of their control does not sit well.

The "Modesty Layer" rule quite frankly sounds like lip service, that's going to end up costing quite a few people a lot of investment.

This is one thing I don't get ether. Why not just mandate a covering, you see any avatar not wearing a covering, report. I don't see how the end result is different ether. The important thing should be not naked. It's enough for adults going to general rated areas, so why not for kids who will be restricted to general/moderate [except for moderate with nudity/activity] as well? Having the layer baked on the skin seems to be the in-between here that would bridge these two, but until LL clarifies, it's not my assumption that's good enough.

1 hour ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

actually the few I have on FB are actually praising and congratulating LL for making these changes. 

Indeed, most of the kid community is fine with this, just the way the wording is on the modesty cover that has those that use an unsupported body worried, which I address in this same post a bit higher up.

41 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

That the uproar was posted elsewhere and residents demanded action in various places, I'm sure they felt as.if they had to do.something.  

Oh for sure, I was in several Discords where it was brought up [indirectly, since no one allowed posted the "exact cause"] Some even claimed they were contacting official authorities, I don't see how LL could not react and I was waiting for something like this.

---------------------

I'm finely caught up [ish - considering 40+ new posts since I started writing]. x.x

[Rowan Amore]

2 minutes ago, Dyna Mole said:

OK, gang..   I have just removed a growing off-topic pile-on that seems to have started because of a misreading.  Please do not continue.

Sorry Dyna.  My post went out the same time as yours.

[Kathlen Onyx]

Here is how it's going to go down with ME:

If I see a child avatar in an Adult region, I am going to make an AR.

If I see a child avatar on a nude beach in a M rated region, I am going to make an AR.

If I see a child avatar in a club that is doing M rated things that include nudity or sexualized talk I am going to IM the owner/host of the region and ask them to ask the child avatar to leave. If they refuse or don't comply I won't be returning to said club. No AR needed.

If I see a Child Avatar in a G rated region I may engage with them and RP as an adult speaking to a child. I may also ignore them. 

If I see a Child Avatar in a M rated region I may engage with them and RP as an adult speaking to a child. I may also ignore them. 

In no uncertain terms would I check to see if they had a modesty panel on or actually care if they do.  That's up to them to police. If they feel they want to take the chance that someone might look and report, well that's their decision. As long as they are clothed, aren't around A rated sims or M rated sims where nudity and/or sexual activities (including local chat) is going on I really don't care enough to worry about it.

HOWEVER, what I consider a child avatar is my interpretation.  Anime included. If the head or body looks like a child whether it's a child avatar or anime makes no difference to me.  I will let LL decide if the AR was appropriate.

I really don't see me being a threat to Child Avatars.  

For what it's worth I was part of BeYou for 2 years. Lots and lots of child avatars play BeYou. Not one time did I ever see anything wrong going on, out in the community or on the M rated sim.  

Nothing I wrote above has changed for me due to the new TOS rules and not once have I ever had to make an AR on a child avatar.

I personally feel that having to have a modesty panel baked into the body is too much. I would think that if a child avatar is simply wearing BOM bra/panties with clothing covering it up should be sufficient enough but it's not my call. 

 

Edited May 4 by Kathlen Onyx

[Starberry Passion]

47 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

People do realize, that CP always constitutes actual children depicted in sexual ways. The only way that "drawings or art" could be hit, is if say the person who made the image made an exact likeness of a real child. So as weird as the anime or cartoon stuff is, that is not actual CP. 

Correct, it has to be indistinguishable to a real life child, in other words you'd get hit with a crime if you used A.I to replicate actual CP and make it look real and believable to a real human being and not a fictitious being, here in the U.S.

However, there are some areas outside of the U.S. that do jail you for fictional materials.

[Sid Nagy]

58 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Seems like the thread is stuck on "wash", "rinse", "repeat".

This is only the 24th repeat so there should be enough left for at least 30 pages or even more.

[Anna Salyx]

24 minutes ago, Cindy Evanier said:

Can you all slow down?  My chinese takeout just arrived!

 

16 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Maybe we can at least have the Fortune Cookies.

<nicks the fortune cookie while everyone is distracted>

[Sammy Huntsman]

4 minutes ago, Starberry Passion said:

Correct, it has to be indistinguishable to a real life child, in other words you'd get hit with a crime if you used A.I to replicate actual CP and make it look real and believable to a real human being and not a fictitious being, here in the U.S.

However, there are some areas outside of the U.S. that do jail you for fictional materials.

I do think that countries and or states, that have laws that punish people with cartoons are so out of touch with reality. I mean sure as I said before, I find it weird. But these cartoons are not hurting anyone. 

[Arielle Popstar]

8 minutes ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

Here is how it's going to go down with ME:

If I see a child avatar in an Adult region, I am going to make an AR.

If I see a child avatar on a nude beach in a M rated region, I am going to make an AR.

If I see a child avatar in a club that is doing M rated things that include nudity or sexualized talk I am going to IM the owner/host of the region and ask them to ask the child avatar to leave. If they refuse or don't comply I won't be returning to said club. No AR needed.

If I see a Child Avatar in a G rated region I may engage with them and RP as an adult speaking to a child. I may also ignore them. 

If I see a Child Avatar in a M rated region I may engage with them and RP as an adult speaking to a child. I may also ignore them. 

In no uncertain terms would I check to see if they had a modesty panel on or actually care if they do.  That's up to them to police. If they feel they want to take the chance that someone might look and report, well that's their decision. As long as they are clothed, aren't around A rated sims or M rated sims where nudity and/or sexual activities (including local chat) is going on I really don't care enough to worry about it.

HOWEVER, what I consider a child avatar is my interpretation.  Anime included. If the head or body looks like a child whether it's a child avatar or anime makes no difference to me.  I will let LL decide if the AR was appropriate.

I really don't see me being a threat to Child Avatars.  

For what it's worth I was part of BeYou for 2 years. Lots and lots of child avatars play BeYou. Not one time did I ever see anything wrong going on, out in the community or on the M rated sim.  

Nothing I wrote above has changed for me due to the new TOS rules and not once have I ever had to make an AR on a child avatar.

I personally feel that having to have a modesty panel baked into the body is too much. I would think that if a child avatar is simply wearing BOM bra/panties with clothing covering it up should be sufficient enough but it's not my call. 

 

So a child avatar who self identifies as such or is less then a tween or one that is in your own estimation portraying one as being less then 18?

 

[Sid Nagy]

As an intermezzo in this thread: remember where this is all about in the end:

Our not perfect, but still wonderful world.
Carry on.

Edited May 4 by Sid Nagy