So what changed in the Terms of Service?

[Kei Niosaki]

12 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

Then you're going to get banned.

Yeah maybe, but that is if someone finds a way to get past the alpha or underwear BOM to get a pic to file a report, can be years before that happens

[brodiac90]

10 minutes ago, Kei Niosaki said:

Yeah maybe, but that is if someone finds a way to get past the alpha or underwear BOM to get a pic to file a report, can be years before that happens

After stating you're going to break TOS I hope you get banned, you give child avatars like me a bad name. 

Edited May 4 by brodiac90

[Vivienne Schell]

1 minute ago, Rowan Amore said:

No one said it was a well thought out plan by LL.

Oh, it´s a cool plan. Cause...in normal (dressed) situations it does not matter, anyway. But if a child avi drops clothing attachments it does. And the second situation is exactly the situation LL adresses.

[Kathlen Onyx]

3 minutes ago, brodiac90 said:

After stating you're going to break TOS I hope you get banned, you give kids like me a bad name. 

But you aren't really a kid. You are an adult.

[Coffee Pancake]

Just now, Kei Niosaki said:

Yeah maybe, but that is if someone finds a way to get past the alpha or underwear BOM to get a pic to file a report, can be years before that happens

They don't have to.

They just have to report you for being a child avatar that breaking the ToS. LL get to sort out which rules are actually broken and if that warrants an immediate forever all account ban.

Good luck.

[Theresa Tennyson]

26 minutes ago, Vivienne Schell said:

Why? "Baked on skin" is a clear definition. Why should they change that? Because a handful of protesters whine?

NO. IT. IS. NOT.

With "Bakes on Mesh [Linden Lab term]",  the skin you see on an avatar is a composite of a number of layers "baked" together. Somebody else can't change that. However, the owner of that avatar can wear different layers to have the baked composite come out differently.

So, is this "baked on skin" by that definition? Or would it be required that the modesty layer be a permanent part of the skin file itself? That's what it seems like some of the FAQ answers would imply, but that's not how Linden Lab used the term baked before.

And if the child avatar makers are required to make it impossible to have the the avatar appear to be nude, then either the skin or the additional perma-pantsu layer can only be changed using something that is directly provided by the avatar maker - i.e. no applier systems or Bakes on Mesh would be allowable. And it goes without saying that the entire avatar would have to be no-mod as well.

[brodiac90]

2 minutes ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

But you aren't really a kid. You are an adult.

kid avatar then. 

[Vivienne Schell]

5 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

NO. IT. IS. NOT.

With "Bakes on Mesh [Linden Lab term]",  the skin you see on an avatar is a composite of a number of layers "baked" together. Somebody else can't change that. However, the owner of that avatar can wear different layers to have the baked composite come out differently.

So, is this "baked on skin" by that definition? Or would it be required that the modesty layer be a permanent part of the skin file itself? That's what it seems like some of the FAQ answers would imply, but that's not how Linden Lab used the term baked before.

And if the child avatar makers are required to make it impossible to have the the avatar appear to be nude, then either the skin or the additional perma-pantsu layer can only be changed using something that is directly provided by the avatar maker - i.e. no applier systems or Bakes on Mesh would be allowable. And it goes without saying that the entire avatar would have to be no-mod as well.

And why does LL demand skin creators to add these modesty patches to the skins they sell for child avatars? I think it is perfectly clear what is meant here, and trying to find the hair in the soup where there is none by interpretation of a single word out of context is useless.

Edited May 4 by Vivienne Schell

[BilliJo Aldrin]

2 hours ago, Denim Robonaught said:

Not true.

 

You can't have hookers on moderate land, no matter how high up you place them

[Kei Niosaki]

2 minutes ago, brodiac90 said:

After stating you're going to break TOS I hope you get banned, you give kids like me a bad name. 

Kids that run around naked give us a bad name, I dont do that i have enough sense to be covered at all times. If refusing to change myself after im finally happy with avi ruins Sl for you then oh well.

[Theresa Tennyson]

Just now, Vivienne Schell said:

And why does LL demand skin creators to add these modesty patches to the skins they sell to child avatars? I think it is perfectly clear what is meant here, and trying to find the hair in the soup where there is none by interpretation of a single word out of context is useless.

So tell us what it means.

[Blush Bravin]

46 minutes ago, 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.

Reading this carefully, I'm not so sure it can't be BOM. The termed baked applies to system layers baked into the base skin texture creating one texture. What does leave me questioning though is the part that states that modesty layer may not be removed. That almost sounds like derendering or possibly being removed by someone other than the person wearing the modestly layer the way some mesh clothing can be removed using HUDs, scripts, or even just by touching the object triggering a drop down box. 

And I'm just speculating. For the past day and a half I really thought there's no way it's talking about BOM, but now I need clarification too. I hate being confused and uncertain about important things. I can really empathize with people using child avatars. The uncertainty must be frustrating and stressful.

[brodiac90]

1 minute ago, Kei Niosaki said:

Kids that run around naked give us a bad name, I dont do that i have enough sense to be covered at all times. If refusing to change myself after im finally happy with avi ruins Sl for you then oh well.

Do you not understand what is happening right now? Do you have any idea how bad what you're saying looks? 

[Vivienne Schell]

Just now, Theresa Tennyson said:

So tell us what it means.

I did so ten or more times so far. /me yawns

[BilliJo Aldrin]

1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

The whole POINT of A rated areas is that, in them, you can have sex in the street.

 

Actually no you can't, you can't rezz in the street, but you could have sex on your front lawn, visible from the street 😂

[Coffee Pancake]

2 minutes ago, Blush Bravin said:

Reading this carefully, I'm not so sure it can't be BOM.

This is the issue we're trying to get an answer on and .. LL are saying nothing.

@Tommy Linden @Maggie Linden You do realize that with out explicitly detailing what a modest layer is, a literal reading of the  rules would allow for one on the back of an avatar's head whilst wearing socks.

 

[Love Zhaoying]

32 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

39 minutes ago, Kei Niosaki said:

I honestly dont care.

Then you're going to get banned.

I like the honesty, the bluntness, the sanity, the reality check! Thank you.

[Kathlen Onyx]

5 minutes ago, Blush Bravin said:

And I'm just speculating. For the past day and a half I really thought there's no way it's talking about BOM, but now I need clarification too. I hate being confused and uncertain about important things. I can really empathize with people using child avatars. The uncertainty must be frustrating and stressful.

Myself as well. If it really IS just talking about BOM then all this is for nothing. The only thing that makes me think it's not is that LL is requiring the creator to make them. Not residents just going out and buying BOM clothing.

[LittleMe Jewell]

8 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

You can't have hookers on moderate land, no matter how high up you place them

Actually you can -- as long as they don't advertise themselves on Moderate land.  A hooker can take a John to moderate land to do the deed and collect payment.  That is the "behind closed doors" part.

[Vivienne Schell]

7 minutes ago, Blush Bravin said:

The uncertainty must be frustrating and stressful.

Yeah, terrible. I bet millions of psychotherapists will have a lot of work over the coming weeks.

[Kathlen Onyx]

3 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

Actually no you can't, you can't rezz in the street, but you could have sex on your front lawn, visible from the street 😂

OH you don't have the HUD where you don't need rez rights?

[Kei Niosaki]

Just now, brodiac90 said:

Do you not understand what is happening right now? Do you have any idea how bad what you're saying looks? 

Yes i do know but Im basically just saying there is no way for anyone to know if my skin has something baked onto it or not anyways if im alphaed out down there or wearing Bom underwear therefore i dont care about the new rules since i am alwasy covered anyways.

[Blush Bravin]

Another thing that makes me question could it be just BOM layers is that - for instance - the LaraX does not have a smooth front so just using BOM undies isn't really modest. The outline of the parts still show. So in that case it would require an actual change to the mesh which the creator is the only who can make that change. On the other hand, if the bodies made specifically for children and teens do not have the mesh sculpted in such a way to show the 3D shape of the parts then perhaps BOM would suffice for modesty.

Edited May 4 by Blush Bravin

[Vivienne Schell]

4 minutes ago, Kei Niosaki said:

Yes i do know but Im basically just saying there is no way for anyone to know if my skin has something baked onto it or not anyways if im alphaed out down there or wearing Bom underwear therefore i dont care about the new rules since i am alwasy covered anyways.

You may get away with that, even if it is a ToS violation - as long as you do not drop your clothes. But I were you I`d not proclaim it,. Just do it and hope that your mesh attachments and alphas rezz fast enough to others.

Edited May 4 by Vivienne Schell

[Theresa Tennyson]

7 minutes ago, Vivienne Schell said:

I did so ten or more times so far. /me yawns

 

2 hours ago, Vivienne Schell said:

A skin is always removable, but it should not be removed from a child avatar. And it does not really matter if someone calls the modesty patches "bult in" or "baked on". That differnce in expression might be stuff for TV lawyer sagas at best. The ToS are very clear.

That's perfectly clear, isn't? Who's responsible for it "not being removed from a child avatar?" If it's the avatar owner then there should be no problem with wearing BOM genital erasers on existing skins, and there would be no need to modify existing child avatars as long as the owner was behaving responsibly.

But since that's not what the FAQ is saying, then it appears that the responsibility is with the avatar maker, which means that they'd have to make it impossible for a non-controlled skin texture to show up on it.