Love Zhaoying Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 2 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said: (Sometimes, ya know... I have one of those days) I would chalk it up to the constant pressure of being beautiful AND smart. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 6 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said: Arielle, it's the non-removable part that's a problem, not the modesty part. If an avatar is wearing a skin with no genitalia, maybe even with underwear as part of the skin, they can still cover that skin with a tattoo or clothing layer. The system body and nearly all mesh bodies are BOM compatible, so how would LL stop people from changing or covering their skin? They can't tag some bodies as child bodies while others are for adults, furries or robots. Mesh bodies look the same as mesh clothing to a computer program. Since we can create our own tattoo and system clothing, anyone can also slap a skin texture onto any of these layers and use it like a skin. "I'm not naked, officer. I'm just wearing a bodysuit that looks like I'm naked." If Maitreya for example put out the LaraX or just Lara body with no bom and no applier scripts that only allowed a modified skin to be applied from a separate hud, that includes the Modesty covering, then I don't see a problem. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Persephone Emerald Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 1 hour ago, Cindy Evanier said: My friend was a rug Ah, but we're they a bare rug? 1 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blush Bravin Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 1 hour ago, BilliJo Aldrin said: they might have undressed while you were still an orange cloud, so they didn't know you were a kid. Simple solution. Don't undress until you can actually see the people around you. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 6 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said: If Maitreya for example put out the LaraX or just Lara body with no bom and no applier scripts that only allowed a modified skin to be applied from a separate hud, that includes the Modesty covering, then I don't see a problem. Hmm..idea: modesty layers must be a neon Orange or neon Pink, etc. - some color that would never be ueed for skin tones. However, this would allow the modesty layer to be replaced more easily in photo manipulation software (like green-screen or "chroma key").. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roxy Couturier Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 1 hour ago, Sammy Huntsman said: Um you clearly didn't read further down. I did admit to being wrong, and thanked everyone for clarifying it. Yes i saw that, but it was too late. Good on you for being civil about it. Sorry if it felt like a pile-on. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 3 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said: Hmm..idea: modesty layers must be a neon Orange or neon Pink, etc. - some color that would never be ueed for skin tones. However, this would allow the modesty layer to be replaced more easily in photo manipulation software (like green-screen or "chroma key").. Sounds like something that would shine through light colored panties. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathlen Onyx Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 2 minutes ago, Blush Bravin said: Simple solution. Don't undress until you can actually see the people around you. Let's be realistic for a minute. IF this scenario happens it's less that a miniscule amount. If it gets AR'd even less than that. If LL takes it seriously as a violation even less. I would hope that... say I, all of a sudden, start sending in TONS of AR reports on July 1 that are unsubstantiated then that would be considered a misuse of the AR system and I should get a reprimand for it including a perma ban if it continues. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 9 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said: If Maitreya for example put out the LaraX or just Lara body with no bom and no applier scripts that only allowed a modified skin to be applied from a separate hud, that includes the Modesty covering, then I don't see a problem. The problem with Maitreya is you'd have to add the other BoM body parts in order to smooth out the butt cleavage and the V. Those would be considered emphasizing those areas. Someone mentioned the bodies made.specifically for children, don't include that definition. She'd have to put out the body with at least one of those layers permanently attached or rework those areas. That MIGHT break some mesh clothing. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roxy Couturier Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said: How is nudity even possible if wearing a non removable Modesty layer? Why would an adult AV have a modesty layer? Because in either of those cases, the child AV is still clothed, the adult(s) would be the naked party. Kid id sitting around enjoying the sim, adult comes by and sees the kid and decides to get naked. Adult is in the wrong. On the other hand, adult(s) are sitting around naked and kid comes along and joins them generally hanging out, then the kid is in the wrong. I'm not sure how else to explain that scenario 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Sharkfin Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 2 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said: I want to quickly address this, and a similar suggestion from @Fluffy Sharkfin earlier in this thread. As I pointed out in a subsequent post shortly after the one you're referring to... 9 hours ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said: I don't expect they'd ever do anything like that ... because of course they wouldn't, the majority wouldn't stand for it. As someone else pointed out earlier LL would never get away with victimizing the majority, which is why they're opting to victimize a minority instead. Because it's so much easier to erode peoples freedom if you only do it to a few people at a time, heck if you get the propaganda right the majority will even cheer you on while you're doing it. 2 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said: No. Because there are grey areas here. My own parcel is "G" rated; I'd probably prefer that it were "M" but it makes no practical difference to me. But there is a difference between a region where sex is going on behind closed doors only, and one in which it's happening on a front lawn, or where your next door neighbour is an open and public BDSM venue. And there IS a difference between a non-sexual "nude beach," and one where sex is permitted. Losing "M" means eliding all of the nuance and gradients in experience that we currently enjoy. I agree there are grey areas and that is exactly the issue. I certainly don't want to see SL diminished in some way or lose any of the nuance and gradients in experience that it possesses but at the same time that pesky grey area has some residents in fear for their accounts, not just the nuances and gradients in experience they enjoy but their very existence in SL, their ability to experience the platform at all. I personally don't believe that LL will be so heavy-handed in their governance, and have at least some faith that they will try to be fair and not simply ban anyone that gets reported, however my faith in LL does nothing to alleviate the worry of those who are reading through the new TOS and trying to make sense of exactly what the rules are and how to follow them. LL need to provide more clarity and also make sure everyone is adhering to the rules which govern content allowed on parcels because now bending those rules can potentially lead to some unsuspecting resident losing their account (at least in the minds of those affected by the latest changes to the TOS). You can't simply tell certain people they are allowed in M rated areas as long as certain content or activities aren't present and then allow others to bend the rules and put prohibited content on parcels in those areas or behave in a way that isn't permitted. If LL are going to restrict access to areas for certain residents based on maturity ratings it needs to be made clear to every SL resident that breaking any rule regarding maturity ratings can lead to permanent removal from the platform. If residents using a child avatar can potentially lose everything by being somewhere they shouldn't isn't it only fair that residents that knowingly place content prohibited by the maturity rating suffer the same fate? 2 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said: There's another point, too: "A" ratings apply not merely to sexuality but also to "extreme" or "graphic" violence. (Which is stupid, and I've complained about this many times since 2009, but there you are.) Getting rid of "M" would mean that anyone who wanted to express their sexuality, even in private, would be potentially exposed to some pretty nasty stuff, including but not limited to Dolcett, snuff, r*pe play, or even just non-sexual graphic violence. And for some people that's not merely unpleasant: it can actually be extraordinarily triggering. (And yes, I mean "triggering" in a technical sense, and not just "Ewww, that's gross"). I completely sympathise because I go to great lengths to avoid all of the above and certainly don't want to force anyone else to suffer by exposing them to any of it. I find it all rather distasteful, however I have never (seriously) advocated for any of those activities or associated content to be removed from SL even though I have no interest in them and feel they do nothing to better SL as a platform, and certainly do nothing positive for its reputation. I do however find it grossly ironic that a lot of people who are fans of such things will be the first to tell you that they don't like child avatars because they're "creepy"! 2 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said: Removing "M" removes a really important tool that we all have to customize our experience of SL, and ensure that it is not merely pleasant, but also "safe." As I said, I'm not really advocating for the removal of Moderate rated areas but I would like to see far more clarification of the new TOS in relation to maturity ratings and some sort of indication that LL plan to ensure that those visiting certain areas can rely on those ratings to properly reflect the content and activities they will encounter. To be clear, I'm also not advocating for residents to get banned for accidentally rezzing the wrong furniture or clicking detach all at an inopportune moment. I don't want to see anyone disadvantaged or unjustly excluded from SL but I feel like all of the responsibility is being placed on the shoulders of a minority of residents, meanwhile others are applauding LL's attempts to clean up SL only as long as they don't have to suffer any hardship or inconvenience themselves. If I'm advocating for anything, it's a little more equity in the way LL is approaching the problem of separating child avatars from adult content. 8 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 Best. Thread. Evarr! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Persephone Emerald Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 1 hour ago, BilliJo Aldrin said: they might have undressed while you were still an orange cloud, so they didn't know you were a kid. /me goes to look for an orange cloud avatar on MP...or maybe a baby goat, so the next time I see someone inappropriately dressed in a store I can say, "Hey, that's no way to be dressed in front of a kid!" 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blush Bravin Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 4 minutes ago, Kathlen Onyx said: Let's be realistic for a minute. IF this scenario happens it's less that a miniscule amount. If it gets AR'd even less than that. If LL takes it seriously as a violation even less. I would hope that... say I, all of a sudden, start sending in TONS of AR reports on July 1 that are unsubstantiated then that would be considered a misuse of the AR system and I should get a reprimand for it including a perma ban if it continues. I only offered this suggestion because to me the scenario seemed bogus. So I agree. I doubt Governance would fall for such an excuse. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roxy Couturier Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 1 hour ago, Vivienne Schell said: Nudity on M rated sims is allowed And what for would you AR the adult avi player? For executing his right to go nude? Or what exactly? Not necessarily, just because the land is M rated does not automagically mean that nudity is allowed. The parcel owner can say 'no nudity here, period.' Then there's a reasonable expectation that there is no nudity on that parcel. In that case, the naked adult is in the wrong. And a tool. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephanie Misfit Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 23 minutes ago, Wincil said: I think not all anime avatars would be child avatars which is obvious some anime characters in fiction can be canonically a adult. Luckily the policy states "child like" and not just "child", which would cover a lot of those anime avatars. 1 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wincil Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Stephanie Misfit said: Luckily the policy states "child like" and not just "child", which would cover a lot of those anime avatars. Well that's what I was trying to point out not all of them are child avatar's. Edited May 5 by Wincil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chery Amore Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 16 minutes ago, Blush Bravin said: Trying to catch up again. I'm on page 140. But as I'm reading I'm thinking, and I'm probably going to be tarred and feathered for this comment. ... but here goes: Since child avatars are no longer allowed to be in the presence of nude adults (which I totally agree with), I kind of think it's unfair that they have the potential of being denied the enjoyment of Blake Sea due to all the nude sailing that occurs there. I just don't think that's fair personally. And while I understand that it isn't really an issue in the case of passing boats, enjoying the beaches there could potentially lead to a violation. Please when you throw rocks at me use soft rocks, but perhaps changing the regions of the Blake Sea from moderate to general could be a good thing. I'm not mad at you for suggesting it .. would be interesting to see where it goes but I personally I hope not. I'm in a few of those types of topless sailing groups and participate from time to time. I said earlier though when someone asked I don't think two boats passing where one has a naked sailor on it and one is run by a child avatar .. or family with a child would amount to anything if an AR occurred. They are just passing.. no big deal. I think the problem would be if a child avatar was in one of those types of groups and participating along with. Once again to me anyway it brings up people that readily switch between an adult and a child avatar .. and participate in nudity/sex stuff on the adult. I can't help that that bothers me and always will. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceka Cianci Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 This thread better be at 200 pages by the time I wake up in the morning or I'm gonna start thinking you guys aren't serious about this. hehehe 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codex Alpha Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 5 minutes ago, Blush Bravin said: I only offered this suggestion because to me the scenario seemed bogus. So I agree. I doubt Governance would fall for such an excuse. People are often tempted to point out some exception or some exceptional event, then play it off as if it were common. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 5 minutes ago, Stephanie Misfit said: Luckily the policy states "child like" and not just "child", which would cover a lot of those anime avatars. Good point! Plus, "childlike" could also mean behavior, not just appearance. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathlen Onyx Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 2 minutes ago, Wincil said: Well that's what I was trying to point out not all of them are child avatar's. Then it would be up to LL to decide if they are or are not. Resident's still have the right to AR them if they believe they are. I think that is where the disconnect with you is. Just because someone AR's you doesn't mean you did anything wrong. If you didn't then nothing to worry about, right? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 Those 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 3 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said: People are often tempted to point out some exception or some exceptional event, then play it off as if it were common. Like how some people keep saying, "what about this, what about that?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUSTUS Palianta Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 4 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said: This thread better be at 200 pages by the time I wake up in the morning or I'm gonna start thinking you guys aren't serious about this. hehehe Surely this thread is running out of steam by now. ❤️ 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts