Starberry Passion Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 You know what this is right now, this is a high case of a lot of people, I am seeing, being very Nijikon or Fictosexual. There are so many Nijikons here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annie Evergreen Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 Another take on modesty coverage that can't be removed: Maybe, possibly, LL does mean BOM. To the best of my knowlege, it can't be removed by other people, and can't be derendered. So, no one could take a compromising picture of a "child" avatar without the "child's" cooperation. If my knowlege is wrong, my apologies. I generally only derender ugly billboards that block my view. 5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sammy Huntsman Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 Just now, Annie Evergreen said: Another take on modesty coverage that can't be removed: Maybe, possibly, LL does mean BOM. To the best of my knowlege, it can't be removed by other people, and can't be derendered. So, no one could take a compromising picture of a "child" avatar without the "child's" cooperation. If my knowlege is wrong, my apologies. I generally only derender ugly billboards that block my view. That seems like the best explanation and probably their thoughts on this. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceka Cianci Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 1 minute ago, Sid Nagy said: You chose to be in Second Life. Second Life has a ToS with rules. Like it or not. It is take it or leave it. That is where it all boils down to. No need for 50 more pages of discussion. But ,I need, at least 50 more, cuz they taste soo good! \o/ 3 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolig Loon Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 11 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said: Maybe or as is more likely the case, the Lab will determine is has given enough information for residents to figure it out. LL does not like to commit itself to a specific rule because that then ties them down to that one only. Could be. Either way, nothing is going to be "resolved" in this thread, no matter how long it gets. We don't do the resolving. Unless there's a reason to draw a strict, hard line, Linden Lab will always leave some room for interpretation precisely because rational people can see that most important definitions have fuzzy zones around them. Cases outside the fuzzy zone are easy. Ones inside are tough. A property line or a L$ balance in your account can be defined with a hard line. The apparent age of your avatar can't be. That's what people have been arguing about here for 100+ pages. As soon as LL tries to draw a hard line, people will do exactly the sort of "But..but. ..but ...but ..." complaining that we are doing here because we can all think of really good reasons why the hard line is stupid. The safe way to do it is to say, "Use your good judgement. If you think an avatar looks too young, submit an AR and put the "resolution" in our lap." That's the way standards are defined for fuzzy things in RL, by case law. Ultimately the courts hear enough cases to say where the boundaries of the fuzzy zone are, and they rule on cases in the fuzzy zone -- the special cases -- individually. 4 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathlen Onyx Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 5 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said: That seems like the best explanation and probably their thoughts on this. Do you really think if that is ALL LL meant that there would be 105 pages of complaining? Again where ARE you getting your information and/or interpretation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 1 minute ago, Rolig Loon said: Could be. Either way, nothing is going to be "resolved" in this thread, no matter how long it gets. We don't do the resolving. Unless there's a reason to draw a strict, hard line, Linden Lab will always leave some room for interpretation precisely because rational people can see that most important definitions have fuzzy zones around them. Cases outside the fuzzy zone are easy. Ones inside are tough. A property line or a L$ balance in your account can be defined with a hard line. The apparent age of your avatar can't be. That's what people have been arguing about here for 100+ pages. As soon as LL tries to draw a hard line, people will do exactly the sort of "But..but. ..but ...but ..." complaining that we are doing here because we can all think of really good reasons why the hard line is stupid. The safe way to do it is to say, "Use your good judgement. If you think an avatar looks too young, submit an AR and put the "resolution" in our lap." That's the way standards are defined for fuzzy things in RL, by case law. Ultimately the courts hear enough cases to say where the boundaries of the fuzzy zone are, and they rule on cases in the fuzzy zone -- the special cases -- individually. I think also, sometimes no matter what the Rule is, it later comes down to people needing to follow the "Spirit" of the Rule, rather than JUST the "Letter" of the Rule. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathlen Onyx Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 5 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said: But ,I need, at least 50 more, cuz they taste soo good! \o/ Thank you for that! I was just doing my grocery store order and forgot powdered donuts! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sammy Huntsman Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 Just now, Kathlen Onyx said: Do you really think if that is ALL LL meant that there would be 105 pages of complaining? Again where ARE you getting your information and/or interpretation? That is just my opinion on this. I am not making a factual statement, but it kinda makes sense. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 1 minute ago, Kathlen Onyx said: Do you really think if that is ALL LL meant that there would be 105 pages of complaining? Heck yes, any excuse to complain! Even if the new TOS and FAQ's were "letter perfect", I personally believe that we would have ended up with almost the same exact thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innula Zenovka Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 42 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said: Right and since LL doesn't give hints on defining it, it is ambiguous and completely in the hands of the individual. That leaves it open to a wide range of interpretations, like this modesty layer which after 100 pages is still not resolved. As I mentioned earlier, when in first life a prosecutor considers whether to bring charges involving CSAM where the age of the subject(s) of the images is not known, she has to consider whether she can, if necessary, persuade a jury so that they are sure that the images are of someone under the age of 18. Police officers, lawyers and juries deal with with this as a matter of course without the assistance of statutory guidance about what an 18 year old looks like, in circumstances where the defendant faces consequences far more severe than the loss of their SL account. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vivienne Schell Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 5 minutes ago, Annie Evergreen said: Another take on modesty coverage that can't be removed: Maybe, possibly, LL does mean BOM. To the best of my knowlege, it can't be removed by other people, and can't be derendered. So, no one could take a compromising picture of a "child" avatar without the "child's" cooperation. If my knowlege is wrong, my apologies. I generally only derender ugly billboards that block my view. When I joined SL there were plenty of skins which had undies painted on them. I remember that I almost despaired when I tried to remove them....that was when I was an innocent virgin "girl next door", tho not underaged. Linden Lab probably digged these old nostalgic assets out of some old rotten forgotten server and thought "Yay!". Or not. Fact is that this is exactly what they mean by "baked on the skin". 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathlen Onyx Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 1 minute ago, Sammy Huntsman said: That is just my opinion on this. I am not making a factual statement, but it kinda makes sense. Well I would love it then if LL came on this thread, as they already have, and verified that a modestly layer simply means wearing BOM underwear. I think EVERYONE would be happy with it. I actually already do this anyway and I'm not even a child avatar. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sammy Huntsman Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 Just now, Kathlen Onyx said: Well I would love it then if LL came on this thread, as they already have, and verified that a modestly layer simply means wearing BOM underwear. I think EVERYONE would be happy with it. I actually already do this anyway and I'm not even a child avatar. Well it is the weekend. Lol. So you are gonna have to wait until Monday. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleMe Jewell Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 42 minutes ago, Daniel Regenbogen said: In the whole of Germany there is exactly *one* street where kids are not allowed, for good reason. There are lots of buildings where kids are not allowed, also for good reason. But that doesn't mean that they are not allowed in the street infront of them or in the neighboring building were no such good reasons are to be found. No use comparing SL to RL. SL is a virtual world and pretty much this is all about image. Allowing child avatars on Adult land could give the impression that LL is being lax about keeping children away from adult content. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceka Cianci Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 Didn't Tommy Linden say they updated the FAQ's about 50, 60, maybe 70 pages back? Did anyone else catch that and take a look? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissSweetViolet Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 Just now, Ceka Cianci said: Didn't Tommy Linden say they updated the FAQ's about 50, 60, maybe 70 pages back? Did anyone else catch that and take a look? I did, but I didn't see anything that really clarified the question, unless I missed something. 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kei Niosaki Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 I think to many overreacting to this whole modesty thing. Make it so your Bits cant been seen even if your mesh is derendered an nothing for anyone to report. No updating needed no special skins needed, just be well covered. Im personally not changing my child skins or avi over this since no matter how hard one cams me they wont see anything to send a report to LL over. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vivienne Schell Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 1 minute ago, Ceka Cianci said: Didn't Tommy Linden say they updated the FAQ's about 50, 60, maybe 70 pages back? Did anyone else catch that and take a look? Thing is that that no one signed the FAQ. Everyone signed the ToS. The FAQ does not really matter. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vivienne Schell Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 (edited) 1 minute ago, Kei Niosaki said: I think to many overreacting to this whole modesty thing. Make it so your Bits cant been seen even if your mesh is derendered an nothing for anyone to report. No updating needed no special skins needed, just be well covered. Im personally not changing my child skins or avi over this since no matter how hard one cams me they wont see anything to send a report to LL over. I would not admit that I violate the ToS knowingly at a public forum. Edited May 4 by Vivienne Schell 3 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelina Sinclair Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 31 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said: I suspect that many who set their region 'A' simply don't like rules/restrictions, and when you've set your region to 'M' you've basically accepted a restriction given by LL for such regions (sex only behind closed doors, parcel set to invisible, blah blah blah). So it's the feeling one gets by being more free that often determines the preference of owning an 'A' sim. I feel like with these changes we might see more sim owners change their regions to A rating if it means keep child avas out of their otherwise mature sim. It doesn't have to be sex sims but could be dark RP sims where there is horror, gore and the like. You wouldn't want kids around that and if a child ava did show up their presence alone can ruin the vibe or make people feel awkward. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceka Cianci Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 1 minute ago, Vivienne Schell said: Thing is that that no one signed the FAQ. Everyone signed the ToS. The FAQ does not really matter. If it's LL's FAQ and it gives any kind of clarity to some questions that people are having.. Then yes, it most certainly does matter.. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathlen Onyx Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 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. ^^^^ from the FAQ in two places. This does not sound like simply BOM underwear/clothing. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sammy Huntsman Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 Just now, Kathlen Onyx said: 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. ^^^^ from the FAQ in two places. This does not sound like simply BOM underwear/clothing. My point was you could draw undergarments as baked-on modesty layers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts