So what changed in the Terms of Service?

[Phil Deakins]

1 minute ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

High school was that bad for you, huh?

I can't remember that far back

I'm pointing out that it is very easy to be clearly an adult avatar or clearly a child avatar. Arguing about the year or two where they cross over is silly, imo, and I see no reason for anyone to insist on having an avatar in that narrow range, except for the sake of awkwardness or for the sake of arguing.

[Love Zhaoying]

4 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

So what, specifically, have you heard since last Thursday that leads you to fear that Governance "are on a warpath"

This is standard exaggeration exhibited by some.  Whether due to wanting to "stir things up", or not realizing the meaning / impact their words, I do not know.  I respect Arielle more lately, but that is my honest opinion.

[Love Zhaoying]

2 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

8 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

High school was that bad for you, huh?

I can't remember that far back

That must make it difficult to have empathy for younger people!

[Phil Deakins]

Just now, Love Zhaoying said:

That must make it difficult to have empathy for younger people!

Nope. 

[Juliett Beaumont]

i really need to add more facial wrinkles and age spots to my 17 years old ava skin.

[Phil Deakins]

Just now, Juliett Beaumont said:

i really need to add more facial wrinkles and age spots to my 17 years old ava skin.

Unnecessary. 17 year old skins are way out date. You need a more up to date one. Things have changed a lot in the last 17 years

[BilliJo Aldrin]

33 minutes ago, Juliett Beaumont said:

...oh, and i don't think LL is trying to get away from adult content, it is a core business that gets a lot of real money in. And LL is a business not a pony ranch. I guess LL just likes to keep that business running in a legal way. And pedophilic disorder is a serious issue.

I guess pedos being unable to derender childrens clothing and see them nude is a good thing? It might stop voyeuristic activity , where no one knows and no one is harmed anyway, but it will do nothing to stop what this whole mess started over, which is carnal knowledge of a child.

THAT will continue unabated. 

[Katherine Heartsong]

4 hours ago, Madi Melodious said:

Well, everyone is wrong sometime.  I guess this is just your time.  🙃

Seriously?

In nearly 4 years on the grid I can count the number of times I've ever encountered a child avatar who looks like a toddler on one  hand with fingers left over ... and by child I don't mean dinkies, furrys, fantasy pixies etc ... I mean a 3-12 year old.

I spend time across every kind of G/M/A sim and event (not the hard core adult places though) all over doing various activities so I have no clue where this huge population of toddler avis are all hanging out. Heck I've only ever seen some of the most posting avatars from these forums in world less than a handful of times.

I understand why folks want to be a toddler avatar, sure, I run a female avatar 100% of my time in world and am not the 30-something redhead you all think I am , and have at it, but there are no many of you.

I would guess furries outnumber toddlers by a wide margin but would love to see numbers.

[Innula Zenovka]

2 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

This is standard exaggeration exhibited by some.  Whether due to wanting to "stir things up", or not realizing the meaning / impact their words, I do not know.  I respect Arielle more lately, but that is my honest opinion.

At lot of people are clearly worried and upset about the potential impact of these changes.    Personally I think a lot of the fears are overstated, and I hope that the forthcoming Governance office hours (May 9, 2024, 1400--1500 SLT,  http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Linden Estate Services4/228/16/28) and the Community Round Table on May 20 will go some way to allaying people's concerns by clarifying a lot of the points raised.

But in the meantime I don't think anyone should be worrying and upsetting people even more spreading alarmist rumours about witch-hunts and Governance being on a war path without some evidence to back up what they're saying.

[Arielle Popstar]

22 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I do see some discussion that hints "protecting Child avatars from Adult Content" is necessary because Child avatars may be driven by actual Children.   I think that is a topic not really covered by the TOS changes; the general assumption is that Child avatars are driven by Adults.

I certainly think it would have been worthwhile for them to have made a designation that separates a real adult from somebody who is younger in real life. This is what they have done on other platforms that makes it much easier to see that the Avatar being dealt with is driven by someone underage or older.

[Love Zhaoying]

2 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

At lot of people are clearly worried and upset about the potential impact of these changes.    Personally I think a lot of the fears are overstated, and I hope that the forthcoming Governance office hours (May 9, 2024, 1400--1500 SLT,  http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Linden Estate Services4/228/16/28) and the Community Round Table on May 20 will go some way to allaying people's concerns by clarifying a lot of the points raised.

But in the meantime I don't think anyone should be worrying and upsetting people even more spreading alarmist rumours about witch-hunts and Governance being on a war path without some evidence to back up what they're saying.

I think the changes are VERY reasonable, considering the intent of the changes.

A lot of people see any changes as just one step to "banning something altogether", etc.

[Katherine Heartsong]

5 hours 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.  

If more than 100 people quit SL over this I'd be shocked. Most of us just grumble, adapt to the new rules, and get on with it. 30,000–50,000 daily visitors will not be affected by a few people leaving. It's sad anyone believes that they won't be able to adapt (if a creator isn't around to update their body re: modesty) but surely, it's not the apocalypse you're making it sound like it will be. Seismic changes happen here, the users adapt, always some come, some go.

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Arielle Popstar said:

I certainly think it would have been worthwhile for them to have made a designation that separates a real adult from somebody who is younger in real life. This is what they have done on other platforms that makes it much easier to see that the Avatar being dealt with is driven by someone underage or older.

I 100% agree.

However: You DO understand that these TOS changes are not about the age of the "real" person behind the avatar, right?

Here is my real opinion: Virtual "AP" is tantamount to both CP and CA, since it gives those who would engage in RL CP/CA a platform where it is "ok", effectively encouraging them.  These changes are removing "virtual" avenues for "AP".  They are not addressing the real age of the avatars, which is aside that point.

 

[Love Zhaoying]

I had been wondering why this thread was so big, then remembered that "everyone" is getting the new TOS when they login.

Even if they don't READ the TOS / see the changes, they are probably hearing about them from others. 

If they search for "Second Life TOS changes", they probably find this thread right away.

So, we get a lot of people checking in on this thread, who are not normally Forum users.

 

[Katherine Heartsong]

4 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

They won't bother. Unless there is an additional "something" -- in chat, for instance -- that makes it impossible NOT to interpret it as a*eplay, they will just look away.

This. Looks alone for someone appearing late teen will not be grounds for any action. LL make that very clear in three places. The whole package including context of the AR and where it occurred will be taken into account. If I may give two examples?

You're 17-ish waif thin teen avi in short shorts, blowing bubble gum, ponytails and pink crop top stumbles into A-rated land where their fave clothing store still happens to be located and does some shopping and TPs out home or to a PG dance club.

That same avi on a hypothetical, I don't know, beach sim advertising itself without any subtlty as a spot for teens and daddys to hook up and your conversation involves sexualized innuendo with some grey haired dude in a suit is oogling you dancing and suggesting you should come sit in his lap and "snuggle"?

You tell me, which of those two is going to get you in trouble?

Edited May 5 by Katherine Heartsong

[Innula Zenovka]

3 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I think the changes are VERY reasonable, considering the intent of the changes.

A lot of people see any changes as just one step to "banning something altogether", etc.

I agree.   However, it's clear that a lot of people who have simply been getting on with their (Second) lives as child avatars, doing child avatar stuff on G and M rated regions, and never going near A regions or any sort of sexualised role play are now very concerned that they may have to throw out their existing bodies and skins at the end of next month.  That point does require some further clarification and explanation, I think, which I hope will be forthcoming at the Governance office hours and the Round Table.  Meanwhile, I assume at least some skin manufacturers will be announcing either updates or new product lines, so I doubt people will be left stranded,.    

I just wish people wouldn't stir up other people's genuine concerns without good reason.

[Juliett Beaumont]

1 minute ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I had been wondering why this thread was so big, then remembered that "everyone" is getting the new TOS when they login.

Even if they don't READ the TOS / see the changes, they are probably hearing about them from others. 

If they search for "Second Life TOS changes", they probably find this thread right away.

So, we get a lot of people checking in on this thread, who are not normally Forum users.

 

I was just looking for a summary of changes - I was just too lazy to analyze the new TOS. ;-)

[Innula Zenovka]

12 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

I certainly think it would have been worthwhile for them to have made a designation that separates a real adult from somebody who is younger in real life. This is what they have done on other platforms that makes it much easier to see that the Avatar being dealt with is driven by someone underage or older.

Like this, do you mean?

Linden Lab Official:Clarification of policy disallowing *****
 

Quote

Second Life is a platform made for adults. Minors 16 years of age and above are subject to our Age-Restricted Content policy. If you are 13-15 years old, you may be allowed if you are restricted to the estate of a sponsoring organization. For more information, see Teens in Second Life.

 

[Starberry Passion]

5 hours ago, JUSTUS Palianta said:

I feel like the new rules help to keep adults safe from that situation.  Although it won't stop really determined tiny trolls, it will help.

That's what I said and someone didn't understand how a kid avatar would get an adult avatar into trouble on purpose. But height has nothing to do with being an adult, you can be short and be an adult.

[Arielle Popstar]

9 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I 100% agree.

However: You DO understand that these TOS changes are not about the age of the "real" person behind the avatar, right?

Here is my real opinion: Virtual "AP" is tantamount to both CP and CA, since it gives those who would engage in RL CP/CA a platform where it is "ok", effectively encouraging them.  These changes are removing "virtual" avenues for "AP".  They are not addressing the real age of the avatars, which is aside that point.

 

What is CP/CA?

[Love Zhaoying]

4 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

However, it's clear that a lot of people who have simply been getting on with their (Second) lives as child avatars, doing child avatar stuff on G and M rated regions, and never going near A regions or any sort of sexualised role play are now very concerned that they may have to throw out their existing bodies and skins at the end of next month.

Yes, clarification on the FAQ's will definitely help with that.

Child avatars will still be allowed in "M-rated" regions, correct (following the current TOS)?  Sorry, I may have lost track due to all the "suggestions" mixed in with the "actual" changes.

[Katherine Heartsong]

4 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I think it's unfortunate, but yes . . . for at least a while, until the furor dies down a little, I'd likely be a little extra cautious.

It'll be interesting . . . I have a "realistically" proportioned avi -- 180 cm -- with small breasts. And, although I don't wear anything that I think could be construed as "Lolita" or even anime, I DO wear things occasionally that are somewhat "younger" looking, as part of a fashion associated with the Riot Grrrl movement of the 90s.

I've never been questioned as to my age. I wonder if I will be now?

Besides being a superb avatar, no way. No one should question that avatar and again, if they do unless you were out hard flirting on the wrong type of sim that promoted late teen sexual activity, LL would toss it in a second.

[Love Zhaoying]

5 minutes ago, Juliett Beaumont said:

I was just looking for a summary of changes - I was just too lazy to analyze the new TOS. ;-)

Yeah, the summaries are towards the very start of the thread (and the FAQ's that address them are repeated often in the thread).

[Love Zhaoying]

I have an idea to "engage the community" to help with enforcement.

A group "sworn to protect child avatars" can be formed.  Think of them similar to the Hell's Angels, or "Nazi Hunters", or the vengeful group from the movie "Sleepers".  This group could ensure that Child avatars are "safe at all times'.  

As a bonus, the same group could help ensure that any Child avatar also did not "get into trouble" through any action!

We could call them "Big Brothers" (like the RL "Big Brothers and Sisters" organization).

"Thank you, Big Brother!"

* If you take this suggestion totally seriously, you have failed to detect basic satire and irony. I know some people will interpret this seriously and be upset by it. This caveat is for those people.

Edited May 5 by Love Zhaoying

[Innula Zenovka]

3 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Yes, clarification on the FAQ's will definitely help with that.

Child avatars will still be allowed in "M-rated" regions, correct (following the current TOS)?  Sorry, I may have lost track due to all the "suggestions" mixed in with the "actual" changes.

Under the new policy, child avatars are now restricted to M and G rated areas.   That's new.   They are allowed -- and the FAQ make this explicit -- allowed on M regions where there is adult furniture etc, so long as they don't actual engage in sexual activity, which they weren't allowed to before the changes, either.