Sydelle Zanzibar Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 9 minutes ago, Alwin Alcott said: they managed quite well in the past, in the wild times there were quite some items removed from inventories for ip rights and replaced with a plywood prim or useless standard animation.... so i'm pretty sure when they do the math ; this name of product + creator or last owner ; here you go, a nice plywood prim for you, but we take your copy of ,,, [fill in at random] Sure they did, but what items exactly are you suggesting they remove? All skins? Bodies that can be made short? I'm not understanding your goal here. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alwin Alcott Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 28 minutes ago, Madi Melodious said: I'm starting to find your comments both inflammatory and offensive. you can try to see it as refreshing.. the totlly different composed posts make you think twice about what's being said .. You don't have to agree, but we can disagree on any post or composition. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drayke Newall Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 8 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said: I don't know how you do this. In practice, it's going to be impossible to produce anything even vaguely resembling a series of hard-and-fast guidelines: there are just too many variables. So, they'll rely on "judgment." As, in fact, they have always done. So nothing really changes then. How can a person know whether they need a modesty layer if 'they' think they look 20 and comply and then find themselves AR'ed and banned because they actually needed one because LL thought they looked younger. Is this the reason LL included as part of their new rules regarding modestly layers "Child avatar content creators"? Is their meaning that only creators that make specific bodies for child avatars need to comply? This then would mean that all that child avatars need to do is not use those bodies and use adult bodies and get around it that way. Dont get me wrong, I believe the rules are good, but they cannot exist without clarification of what is (age look), who is (human, furry, anime, etc) and who needs (all bodies or just those specifically made for) to implement such things. You will never be able to stop all. Everyone gets that, but with very clear and easy work arounds you may as well just remove the rule completely. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brodiac90 Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 One of the really good things about the change in rules is it makes it very clear what G and A land is meant for. I personally would like to see more G land. If it's not already a thing then I think it would be benificial if LL offered Belli homes on G land. Lastly I would like to see better policing of G land too. While many in here have expressed that they are very conscious of what they wear, say and do in G land, that has not always been my experience unfortunately. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alwin Alcott Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 1 minute ago, Sydelle Zanzibar said: Sure they did, but what items exactly are you suggesting they remove? All skins? Bodies that can be made short? I'm not understanding your goal here. i replied to the post by Justus about LL is able to remove items from inventories, i said nóthing about specific items that could be involved in this discussion. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffee Pancake Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 2 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said: I exaggerate, I suppose, but only a little perhaps. Again, appearances. No you don't. But allow me to counter with .. https://www.youtube.com/@misakoaoki0603 She's 40. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sydelle Zanzibar Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 1 minute ago, Alwin Alcott said: i replied to the post by Justus about LL is able to remove items from inventories, i said nóthing about specific items that could be involved in this discussion. Just seems pointless to go on arguing that LL can remove things when no one is suggesting anything to remove. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madi Melodious Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 3 minutes ago, brodiac90 said: One of the really good things about the change in rules is it makes it very clear what G and A land is meant for. I This is probably the best thing about the new rules. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 4 minutes ago, Madi Melodious said: And for some of you that think child avatars are a minority I would advise you to rethink. I did, and I came to the same conclusion, that child avatars are a very small minority. They are certainly not the majority or equal so ... 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Rhiadra Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 Just now, Drayke Newall said: Is their meaning that only creators that make specific bodies for child avatars need to comply? That's my guess. But it's not impossible that some skin creators for Maitreya et al. will also produce some skins with modesty layers, if they believe there is a market for it. 2 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said: How can a person know whether they need a modesty layer if 'they' think they look 20 and comply and then find themselves AR'ed and banned because they actually needed one because LL thought they looked younger. I think that's exactly the kind of "edge case" that they won't worry about. Unless the person is caught, for instance, in IM engaging in something that is obviously representing pedophilia, that person will be pretty safe because they are plausibly NOT under 18. 4 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said: This then would mean that all that child avatars need to do is not use those bodies and use adult bodies and get around it that way. Possibly, but they're doing that now in some places that are oriented towards teen sex play. 5 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said: Dont get me wrong, I believe the rules are good, but they cannot exist without clarification of what is (age look), who is (human, furry, anime, etc) and who needs (all bodies or just those specifically made for) to implement such things. Again, how do you do that? How do you possibly take into account height, facial features, body shape, skins, what's being worn, etc.? It's just not possible. 6 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said: Everyone gets that, but with very clear and easy work arounds you may as well just remove the rule completely. If those work arounds are plausibly deniable, LL won't care. It's the clear cases they are concerned about. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 2 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said: I did, and I came to the same conclusion, that child avatars are a very small minority. They are certainly not the majority or equal so ... Maybe they are all hiding? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madi Melodious Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 3 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said: I did, and I came to the same conclusion, that child avatars are a very small minority. They are certainly not the majority or equal so ... Well, everyone is wrong sometime. I guess this is just your time. 🙃 2 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Rhiadra Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 6 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said: No you don't. But allow me to counter with .. https://www.youtube.com/@misakoaoki0603 She's 40. Yep. Personally, I'd guess that someone looking like that would be reasonably safe, but don't take my word for it. And then there's edge cases like diaper fetishes, paraphilic infantilism, etc. Again, though, none of this is new. These were "problems" before. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alwin Alcott Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 5 minutes ago, Madi Melodious said: they have no intentions to ban child av from the grid, even though current policy changes seem to be doing just that. no no no.. they are nót banning anyone. They'r making just clear where you can play your part of the game. As it was always intended. They don't even have to explain a lot about the rule itself because it should be clear that playing a child comes with certain responsibilities and behaviour, including some dresscode/avatarcode. If this wouldn't be a problem somewhere, the old rules wouldn't have to be changed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 43 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said: No, they are a TIONY, NOISY, insignificant minority. Most of them, I'm sure, seldom stray froom their own self created ghettos. But when you DO see one on an Adult rated region, then they are invariably toxic over-entitled little griefer sh*tebags. There is one of their "community" who used to make regular appearances on this forum. He would state that the ToS (before thiss current change) gave him a "Right" to be on A rated regions, and that WHEN HE ARRIVED, he required all the Adults doing Adult stuff on an Adult region to STOP, for as long as he chose to remain there, basically griefing them with his presence. He also stated that all the adult content on Adult Regions should be relocated to an official obscenity zone, in one corner, behind massive walls so HE cloud enjoy the Adult region, without seeing any of the Adult content. If ANYONE disagreed with him in anyway, he would issue a dire threat to report them to the forum mods, and then when AANYONE posted in the topic, he's spam it with a cut n paste proforma "you have disagreed with me which is thought crime hate speech and have been reported" post for every other post ever made until the mods gave up and nuked the thread. Then there was the stuff SSkell used to complain about, he's out shopping at some M rated event, in his usual stylish "sharp dressed man" attire, and some toxic walking-tos-violation would comment on him being gay, and publicly accuse him in local chat of "therefore being a paedo". There are VERY VALID reasons why many Adult Avatars in SL HATE, LOATHE, AND DESPISE all of these Pint-Sized Anti-Adult-Activities Toxic Overentitled Walking ToS Violations. I was in a club last night on an A rated region, with 20-25 Adult avatars, dancing and listening to Star Wars themed parody songs, and only 1 of them had heard about the ToS changes, the others had all just clicked accept without reading. When they were told that Walking-ToS Violation Avatars were now Officially BANNED from A rated regions, they all said that was "Good news" and "About time" and "Long overdue". If Walking-ToS Violations are butthurt that we hate them, they should blame themselves, becausse THEY TAUGHT US TO HATE THEM! Block and derender is the advice usually given to those who tend to snowflakism. So many are great at giving that advice but suck at using it themselves. Why is that? One has to wonder if they thrive on finding something to be upset about. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUSTUS Palianta Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 7 minutes ago, Sydelle Zanzibar said: Just seems pointless to go on arguing that LL can remove things when no one is suggesting anything to remove. 1 hour ago, Madi Melodious said: In what world will this work? I have 3 bodies in my inventory, are they going to disappear? There is simply no way a modesty layer will work with the current body system when skins and bodies can be changed at will. Unless they demand a modesty layer for all bodies, child and adult, all sizes, it simply will not work. If they are intending the break the rules in private this rule does nothing to stop them in any way. It is simply unenforceable unless you completely change the way the entire system works. I was simply pointing out that linden can and does remove items. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madi Melodious Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 1 minute ago, Alwin Alcott said: no no no.. they are nót banning anyone. They'r making just clear where you can play your part of the game. As it was always intended. They don't even have to explain a lot about the rule itself because it should be clear that playing a child comes with certain responsibilities and behaviour, including some dresscode/avatarcode. If this wouldn't be a problem somewhere, the old rules wouldn't have to be changed. True they are not actively banning anyone. Child AVs are closing their accounts; it may not be the intended results but end the end its the same thing. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sydelle Zanzibar Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 Just now, Love Zhaoying said: Maybe they are all hiding? Most of us stick to our own areas, I think. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alwin Alcott Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 8 minutes ago, Sydelle Zanzibar said: Just seems pointless to go on arguing that LL can remove things when no one is suggesting anything to remove. in that case we agree about your post; pointless, as you don't seem to know a discussion always exists with hundreds of little sidetracks that are related but not specific about the main subject of a thread. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffee Pancake Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said: Yep. Personally, I'd guess that someone looking like that would be reasonably safe, but don't take my word for it. Oh hell no, put that face on a body with a pair of "no way it's a child safety boobs" and .. yeah still banned. came to reddit grieving and i blocked their post because a dogpile wouldn't help anyone. I am angry at how often i have had to do that now. Edited May 5 by Coffee Pancake 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sydelle Zanzibar Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 Just now, Alwin Alcott said: in that case we agree about your post; pointless, as you don't seem to know a discussion always exists with hundreds of little sidetracks that are related but not specific about the main subject of a thread. I read most of these over 100 pages of comments and I asked for a clarification. No one is offering any. We said its not reasonable to delete all the content that would allow people to do unspeakable things, and the response was that LL labs can remove stuff. SO I ask again, what stuff are we proposing they remove? 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alwin Alcott Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 1 minute ago, Madi Melodious said: True they are not actively banning anyone. Child AVs are closing their accounts; it may not be the intended results but end the end its the same thing. people are always free to leave when the rules can't be accepted. But i am pretty convinced that the ones that close their accounts on this new change are overreacting, as it has to many open lines at this moment to make a good choice what to do. The only two things that change; no A access anymore, and no genitals. That;s all. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brodiac90 Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 6 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said: Maybe they are all hiding? You joke, but yes, I haven't left my family home since the TOS changes and with the amount of hate being spewed at the moment I don't think I will either. It's only the support of my family that is pretty much keeping me in SL at the moment, although I had a very nice IM off someone in this thread last night which made me smile even a little smile for a short while. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 6 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said: I did, and I came to the same conclusion, that child avatars are a very small minority. They are certainly not the majority or equal so ... There is however a significant percentage who would be considered as around the late teen. Too many think of "child" as only referring to an 8 year old but there is a quite wider range that for the purpose of the ToS would be included. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alwin Alcott Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 1 minute ago, Sydelle Zanzibar said: SO I ask again, what stuff are we proposing they remove? you quote ME, while i'm not even talking about what you have in mind ... come on please.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts