So what changed in the Terms of Service?

[Blush Bravin]

2 minutes ago, Chery Amore said:

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.

Yeah I said passing boats aren't an issue. As for those who readily change between adult and child avies, also not an issue. But there are, gosh I don't really know how many, but enough who always use child avatars that it's their identity in SL. I don't think they should have to be denied access to a feature of SL that everyone loves. Those who wish to sail naked have other areas available, and yet they can still enjoy sailing in the Blake wearing a swimsuit. They really don't loose anything. The way it is now, child avatars are the only ones loosing. IMO

[Wincil]

8 minutes ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

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?

Well people can misinterpret the policy on child avatars I'm pretty sure anime avatars won't be effected in a negative way why should they be AD'ed if they didn't brake TOS?

Edited May 5 by Wincil

[Love Zhaoying]

I think people who worry all the time about getting AR'd, have a serious case of "guilty conscience". This thread has brought a lot of that out.

[Arielle Popstar]

2 minutes ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

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?

It begs the question then why they were being AR'ed other then the reporter is hoping Governance can find something to ban them for.

I see any AR report as an express attempt by a reporter to have a resident banned from Secondlife.

[Chery Amore]

2 minutes ago, Blush Bravin said:

Yeah I said passing boats aren't an issue. As for those who readily change between adult and child avies, also not an issue. But there are, gosh I don't really know how many, but enough who always use child avatars that it's their identity in SL. I don't think they should have to be denied access to a feature of SL that everyone loves. Those who wish to sail naked have other areas available, and yet they can still enjoy sailing in the Blake wearing a swimsuit. They really don't loose anything. The way it is now, child avatars are the only ones loosing. IMO

Well we'd have to see what the powers that be say.  I follow the rules once again I hope not. Those groups are very popular and active. 

[Angelina Sinclair]

3 minutes ago, JUSTUS Palianta said:

Surely this thread is running out of steam by now. ❤️

not until it hits 150!

[Kathlen Onyx]

2 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

It begs the question then why they were being AR'ed other then the reporter is hoping Governance can find something to ban them for.

I see any AR report as an express attempt by a reporter to have a resident banned from Secondlife.

What's wrong with that? If they are breaking the TOS then they should be banned or at least told not to do it again.

Edited May 5 by Kathlen Onyx

[Persephone Emerald]

1 hour ago, Madi Melodious said:

Question.  We have been beating child av's over the head for 3 days now?   Where do tweens and teens fit in to the new tos requirements?   Normally I would just toss tweens in to the bucket with kids but I'd like an option.  But my question is where do teens fit in?  

Even if I do age up all the way to an adult there are still many things I'm not going to do in SL simply because they don't interest me.   I won't be going on to adult land.  I've done that maybe a few times over 6 years, so no loss there.  

Someone on here said a child is 12 years old or younger, while a teen is 13 to 19.

It might actually be good for LL to make this distinction, rather than having us assume that any avatar that looks under 18 is a child. An avatar that's supposed to be 16 can easily wear a Maitreya Lara body and skin, but an avatar that's supposed to be 10 years old probably couldn't get away with that. If LL seriously wants to impose a modesty skin on child avatars, they should better define what they mean by a "child avatar".

[Extrude Ragu]

Nearly 150 pages in.

I know that there's still a lot of doubt and uncertainty regarding what's actually going to happen. I've still got concerns myself and I'll probably attend governance meeting if I can. But I'm greatful at least that we've had the opportunity to talk about this as much as we have. Threads about much less contentious topics usually get shut down way faster than this.

So thank you, whichever mole(s)/linden(s) have made the call to let this one go on this long without the thread lock.

[Wincil]

2 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I think people who worry all the time about getting AR'd, have a serious case of "guilty conscience". This thread has brought a lot of that out.

Then again not everyone has a guilty conscience.

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Extrude Ragu said:

Nearly 150 pages in.

I know that there's still a lot of doubt and uncertainty regarding what's actually going to happen. I've still got concerns myself and I'll probably attend governance meeting if I can. But I'm greatful at least that we've had the opportunity to talk about this as much as we have. Threads about much less contentious topics usually get shut down way faster than this.

So thank you, whichever mole(s)/linden(s) have made the call to let this one go on this long without the thread lock.

This thread is cheaper and easier than holding a Focus Group.

[Chery Amore]

I don't think I've ever been AR'd do they like put a hold on your account while investigating? I can see where that would be very irritating.

Edited May 5 by Chery Amore

[MissSweetViolet]

2 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

Someone on here said a child is 12 years old or younger, while a teen is 13 to 19.

It might actually be good for LL to make this distinction, rather than having us assume that any avatar that looks under 18 is a child. An avatar that's supposed to be 16 can easily wear a Maitreya Lara body and skin, but an avatar that's supposed to be 10 years old probably couldn't get away with that. If LL seriously wants to impose a modesty skin on child avatars, they should better define what they mean by a "child avatar".

Actually you could easily use Maitreya for that range, I made a whole thread on that just a bit ago; 

 

[Madi Melodious]

1 hour ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

I remember the first dance I had with a guy, it was at tobys, and this guy imed me asking to dance. I said sure. He was from Europe someplace, we had a nice dance and a chat. When we were done and stood off the pose balls he thanked me for allowing him to dance with a beautiful American woman, and tped out.

He was so sweet. I never saw him again. Not all guys are creeps

No, they are not.  My alt met one 13 years ago.  They partnered and did the whole marriage thing.   They  have been together in SL for 13 years now as partners and are still going.  For the past 13 years, if you seen one of us around the grid, the other one wouldn't be to far away. 

Edited May 5 by Madi Melodious

[Arielle Popstar]

2 minutes ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

What's wrong with that? If they are breaking the TOS then they should be banned or at least told not to do it again.

The infraction being reported likely doesn't warrant a lifetime ban and loss of all the time and money the Resident invested, especially considering that the reporter had the ability to just block and derender the offender. Most of all, the offence was probably just something that didn't suit the reporter's personal taste.

[Indy Melody]

One thing I would like LL to address in regards to the General regions are the numerous parcel owners that think that setting there General rated parcel to Group only and putting the clearly titleds Adult sex/BDSM bed inside their home. Setting such General parcels to group only and having such objects there is against the TOS.

[Honey Puddles]

59 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

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."

That part's actually pretty well covered.

Quote

 

Residents presenting as Child Avatars shall be prohibited from the following:

• Wearing genital/sexual attachments including clothing, attachments or HUDs created for and/or worn by child avatars to indicate genitalia, whether visible or not.

 

This would seem to cover both the case of a 'speedo' that was showing a bulge/cameltoe, AND a tattoo layer that painted forbidden skin details over the modesty patches.

Edited May 5 by Honey Puddles

[Stephanie McLaglen]

8 minutes ago, Blush Bravin said:

Yeah I said passing boats aren't an issue. As for those who readily change between adult and child avies, also not an issue. But there are, gosh I don't really know how many, but enough who always use child avatars that it's their identity in SL. I don't think they should have to be denied access to a feature of SL that everyone loves. Those who wish to sail naked have other areas available, and yet they can still enjoy sailing in the Blake wearing a swimsuit. They really don't loose anything. The way it is now, child avatars are the only ones loosing. IMO

That would be me.  I'm 10 at practically all times I'm in SL - because I remember 10 and want to be 10 again.  The pigtails, the frilly dresses, playdates, sleepovers, pool parties.  The closest I've been to anything that could be considered "adult" is if my behavior earned me a spanking - and that hasn't happened in months.  However, with this new policy, I can see things turning out the same way when they "cracked down" on child avatars before: legions of child avs being shunned by adults for fear of doing anything that could remotely be considered sexual.  I can also see that driving out a lot of the child avs who don't want to be shunned by adults, which is frankly hurtful.

[Luna Bliss]

3 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

9 minutes ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

What's wrong with that? If they are breaking the TOS then they should be banned or at least told not to do it again.

The infraction being reported likely doesn't warrant a lifetime ban and loss of all the time and money the Resident invested, especially considering that the reporter had the ability to just block and derender the offender. Most of all, the offence was probably just something that didn't suit the reporter's personal taste.

The lack of empathy is astounding on this thread. The severity for breaking the TOS is much greater than for other types of infractions. No wonder child avatars are concerned.

[Love Zhaoying]

12 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

The infraction being reported likely doesn't warrant a lifetime ban and loss of all the time and money the Resident invested, especially considering that the reporter had the ability to just block and derender the offender. Most of all, the offence was probably just something that didn't suit the reporter's personal taste.

This sounds like an opinion.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

1 hour ago, MissSweetViolet said:

Indeed, or even half doing something else like watching tv or playing a video game or taking to someone irl.

Lately i'm posting in the forums, umm yea baby you are so handsome 😂

[brodiac90]

5 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

The lack of empathy is astounding on this thread. The severity for breaking the TOS is much greater than for other types of infractions. No wonder child avatars are concerned.

This pretty much sums it up. You don't get a second chance if you mess up. It doesn't even necessarily have to be your own fault under the new rules. 

If I'm not careful and someone changes the rating of the sim to A then I have broken TOS. 

If I don't immeditely leave when someone nude appears then I have broken TOS. How many people can never say they''re gotten distracted reading IMs? 

[Rolig Loon]

11 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

I see any AR report as an express attempt by a reporter to have a resident banned from Secondlife.

Not at all. I've known a lot of people over the past 17 years who have done something that they got AR'ed for. Governance doesn't usually permaban someone for a first offence unless it's clearly an egregious violation. LL would rather have people stay in SL, so they'll show you the error of your ways and give you a chance to do better if they can. Besides, most TOS violations are pretty minor things that might get you a verbal warning or a short time out.  If you are giving people scripted things that drain their L$, or are phishing to get their passwords, you'll get nailed. Otherwise, an AR will get you the equivalent of a parking ticket. 

[Love Zhaoying]

19 minutes ago, Wincil said:

Then again not everyone has a guilty conscience.

From my understanding, people who do bad things but don't have a guilty conscience, are called "psychopaths".

[Rowan Amore]

13 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

The infraction being reported likely doesn't warrant a lifetime ban and loss of all the time and money the Resident invested, especially considering that the reporter had the ability to just block and derender the offender. Most of all, the offence was probably just something that didn't suit the reporter's personal taste.

So..if the infraction doesn't warrant a lifetime ban (AP) then what is your concern. If you're not doing something against the ToS, why would you get any banned?  Just because someone reports an avatar that doesn't suit their personal taste doesn't mean a ban.  In fact, someone filing too many of the false reports is in more trouble.  Someone doing nothing wrong?  Scratching my head here.