So what changed in the Terms of Service?

[Starberry Passion]

Just now, Sammy Huntsman said:

Okay so you are wanting a reeducation system, to teach them how they think is wrong? Not taking into consideration of them maybe being uncomfortable with actual child avatars or even cautious who they let in

I think they are talking about more along the lines of actually just learning the ToS and the rules, not trying to conform to a certain view point, instead of being in mass panic mode.

[Starberry Passion]

1 minute ago, Arwyn Quandry said:

Again, since people aren't getting it: HEIGHT IS NOT THE SOLE FACTOR DETERMINING WHAT IS OR ISN'T A CHILD.

Like 5 people have said that height isn't what mattered and that it was the Owner's decisionn to use an auto height detector.

[Luna Bliss]

2 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

5 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

My proposal is that these region owners learn exactly what the rules are so they don't overreact.

They would learn through education by LL and other residents.

I don't think child avatars should be allowed everywhere yes, but it could get to the point where they can hardly go anywhere if the rules aren't clearly defined.

Okay so you are wanting a reeducation system, to teach them how they think is wrong? Not taking into consideration of them maybe being uncomfortable with actual child avatars or even cautious who they let in

I'd like to see the sim owners reactions/limitations based on official, clear rules as opposed to what they imagine the rules are. Then they could choose wisely.

[Kathlen Onyx]

6 minutes ago, Starberry Passion said:

I would complain, as well, if I went to a sim for so many moons, knew everyone, got along with everyone and then suddenly banned from my favorite sim I spent so much time on and established relationships with people there.

Then make yourself a bit taller and go there. Make yourself short when you are not there. Simple, yeah?  The only one banning you from a sim is youself.

[Luna Bliss]

4 minutes ago, Arwyn Quandry said:

Again, since people aren't getting it: HEIGHT IS NOT THE SOLE FACTOR DETERMINING WHAT IS OR ISN'T A CHILD.

We know that on this thread. The point is that most of SL does not know this. So how do we get this information out there to everybody else?

[Arwyn Quandry]

Just now, Luna Bliss said:

We know that on this thread. The point is that most of SL does not know this. So how do we get this information out there to everybody else?

We don't. We let LL do that because it's their job, not ours, to make people aware of the rules.

[Kathlen Onyx]

9 minutes ago, Starberry Passion said:

I think they are talking about more along the lines of actually just learning the ToS and the rules, not trying to conform to a certain view point, instead of being in mass panic mode.

Don't you think if these region owners cared at all they would have already read the TOS and the rules? The thing is they don't care, they don't have to care and it's their playhouse. 

If you want your own playhouse where you make the rules, well then you are going to have to shell out some money to get it.

Edited May 6 by Kathlen Onyx

[Madi Melodious]

28 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

They need to get a life and read the TOS.  HOWEVER:  Any region owner can decide to allow or reject anybody he wants, for any reason, whether it makes sense or not.  The region owner can toss you because he doesn't like the color of your beard or because you have a flower on your shirt, or just because he feels like it.

• “Meldo sim, meldo hlarë.”

[Fluffy Sharkfin]

2 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

Oh I totally get that, but there are so many other regions out there that you can choose from. Clearly they don't want you or your money, and you can just support the place that actually wants you ♥

Thanks but I was mostly just being silly, the TOS changes don't really have any impact on me at all apart from seeing friends struggling to understand them and watching the anguish some people are going through as they realise that all the treasured items they have for bodies that don't get updated will essentially be lost to them (imagine being told that the custom shirt, etc that someone made for you that you've kept for years even though they've long since disappeared is now prohibited and you can never wear it again, in fact just wearing the outfit and associated avatar can get you banned even if you're in your own home).

I wasn't being silly about the feelings of rejection and exclusion being a likely cause of people reacting badly to being ejected from sims though, it really doesn't feel nice no matter the reason.

[Kathlen Onyx]

So in the interest of me understanding would this avatar now be banned as of 6/30 unless the avatar maker released a skin or the body with a modesty panel?

https://marketplace.secondlife.com/p/Yabusaka-Baby-mesh-avatar-B/3584701

If so then LL needs to take things like this OFF the marketplace so that people don't buy it thinking they are able to use them.

I don't think LL thought this through enough.

Edited May 6 by Kathlen Onyx

[Chery Amore]

I haven't run into a height measurement thing in forever. I'm pretty short in second life.. because I make myself zero height to begin with for ... 6 or more years now. I do add height with pulling things more.. legs and maybe torso?

 However if the area is run, bought and paid for by tall people that don't want someone my size there .. or shape for that matter that is absolutely their right.  I'm not entitled to pick anyone's pocket here or make demands on them.  They could make their guest agree to stick their finger up their nose and dance a jig for admittance if they wanted. Wouldn't get the traffic up but it's their right as the land owner.

[Ineffable Mote]

58 minutes ago, Dark Zebendein said:

I'm 5'4 and have a beard in real life. According to LL TOS that now makes me a child. This is bigotry plain and simple. I'm not allowed to be F----ing short? Like come on? I'm being ejected from any A rated sim and my avatar is "checks" -- Dark Zebendein is 1.903 m (6 ft. 2 in.) tall (including shoes).  and that's considered a child according to Linden Labs own height check. This is completely absurd and I wonder if legal action can be taken for discrimination based on height.

 

 

Almost certainly an inane question, but did you maybe try contacting the owners/admins of the places, and explaining anything to them politely and calmly?

In older days I used to have script meters to eject on some of my land, but they had a whitelist option too..not sure if height meters offer that option or not.

Edited May 6 by Ineffable Mote

[Fluffy Sharkfin]

4 minutes ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

So in the interest of me understanding would this avatar now be banned as of 6/30 unless the avatar maker released a skin or the body with a modesty panel?

https://marketplace.secondlife.com/p/Yabusaka-Baby-mesh-avatar-B/3584701

If so then LL needs to take things like this OFF the marketplace so that people don't buy it thinking they are able to use them.

I don't think LL thought this through enough.

I'm going to assume so, unless the creator just happened to add a non-removable modesty patch that complies with the new TOS.

Pretty much every avatar body that isn't adult is going to be in violation of TOS unless the creator updates it.

And no, they certainly did not!

[JUSTUS Palianta]

Yabusaka owner is MIA i was trying to get a dev kit for one of their avatars.  They had a few things for sale in someone else's shop and that's it.  I doubt that avatar will get updated.

Edited May 6 by JUSTUS Palianta
*

[Madi Melodious]

19 minutes ago, Madi Melodious said:

• “Meldo sim, meldo hlarë.”

"My sim, My rules" in Quenya Elvish.    See, Microsoft copiot AI does have some uses.  😇  

[Qie Niangao]

A few items now that I'm briefly caught up:

7 hours ago, MissSweetViolet said:

[quoting stuff I muttered about restricting ARs to content "visible" in the standard Linden viewer with standard viewer settings]

I agree with all of this except only reviewing reports in the standard viewer, people from all viewers need to be able to report content that is a violation.

Yeah, I was intentionally a bit naughty in that wording. I didn't say folks couldn't report using other viewers, just that the content they report must be visible in the Linden viewer (as I said, mostly to defeat any TPV derendering shenanigans). I left a hint of ambiguity because we really need to discourage frivolous ARs so real ones can get prompt attention. So if some people think they need to login to a different viewer even though they don't… well… I don't really see much downside to that.

7 hours ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

You have a really good point there and a legitimate reason for the advocating of A rated Bellisseria land.

There were strong hints something like this would have been announced at SL21B as the plan for the missing southeast quadrant of Zindra… before this mess, I mean. Not likely now. You know who to blame. It ain't LL.

______________

And there were many posts starting hours ago with a post by @brodiac90 rightly posing the situation of a fully clothed, modesty-layered child avatar on M-rated land, where a nude, non-child avatar arrives on the scene. It's clear the FAQ handles a very specific fear about getting ARd for a momentary exposure and that's nice and all, but that's not really the situation. Here, let me help:

Little Johnny dressed in his Sunday best is attending bible study on an unsupervised M-rated public parcel, no suggestion nudity should be expected, when suddenly Woody MacNoob arrives fresh from orientation with a torch in one hand and a proud freenis protruding from his pubis. Bible study isn't over, but Woody shows no inclination (nor ability) to teleport from the scene. Now what? Johnny is in the presence of nudity with no reasonable expectation that will change. He's violating TOS, whether anybody files an AR or not, and if they do, whether Governance for some reason decides to spend an hour on this one report to uncover innocence. Woody has done nothing wrong, there's no reason for anybody to AR him.

Is there some way this doesn't make child avatars second class residents on M-rated land? Should we require non-child avatars to wear burkas on G-rated land, to re-balance the universe? (as if Governance won't have enough to do.) I don't have a solution to suggest, but this effect of the policy really does suck, and the FAQ does not fix it.

 

Edited May 6 by Qie Niangao
(a *nude* non-child avatar arrives, not "non-nude")

[Kathlen Onyx]

2 minutes ago, JUSTUS Palianta said:

Yabusaka owner is MIA i was trying to get a dev kit for one of their avatars.  They had a few things for sale in someone else's shop and that's it.  I doubt that avatar will get updated.

Well that's a shame since it's a pretty pricey paperweight *figuratively* at 750L.  

I sure hope LL has a plan for this.

[Rolig Loon]

1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

But LL has a duty to minimize this problem through proper definitions and education. This is the point.

There are two separate issues here. One is the issue that is being discussed in this thread: clarification of the updates to the Child **** policy.  I think there's general agreement that people in this thread and elsewhere in SL find some parts of the update unclear and would like further information from LL.  The other issue, however, is not new at all.  The TOS (Sect. 3.4) has said for a very long time"

You may permit or deny other users to access your Virtual Land on terms determined by you. Any agreement you make with other users relating to use or access to your Virtual Land must be consistent with the Agreements, and no such agreement can abrogate, nullify, void or modify the Agreements.

The region owner has always had the right to allow or forbid any to have access to the region, for any reason whatsoever, and is not even required to explain why. That's the reply I was giving in my earlier post.

Edit: To be sure you understand my meaning.... I agree that LL needs to provide more clarification of the policy.  I also agree that region owners need to be better informed about what the policy is. My point in this post is simply that regardless of all that, the region owner can still do whatever he/she wants to when it comes to allowing or ejecting a visitor.  She/he doesn't even need to HAVE a reason, much less explain it.

Edited May 6 by Rolig Loon

[Aya Sweetheart]

12 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

And there were many posts starting hours ago with a post by @brodiac90 rightly posing the situation of a fully clothed, modesty-layered child avatar on M-rated land, where a nude, non-child avatar arrives on the scene. It's clear the FAQ handles a very specific fear about getting ARd for a momentary exposure and that's nice and all, but that's not really the situation. Here, let me help:

Little Johnny dressed in his Sunday best is attending bible study on an unsupervised M-rated public parcel, no suggestion nudity should be expected, when suddenly Woody MacNoob arrives fresh from orientation with a torch in one hand and a proud freenis protruding from his pubis. Bible study isn't over, but Woody shows no inclination (nor ability) to teleport from the scene. Now what? Johnny is in the presence of nudity with no reasonable expectation that will change. He's violating TOS, whether anybody files an AR or not, and if they do, whether Governance for some reason decides to spend an hour on this one report to uncover innocence. Woody has done nothing wrong, there's no reason for anybody to AR him.

Is there some way this doesn't make child avatars second class residents on M-rated land? Should we require non-child avatars to wear burkas on G-rated land, to re-balance the universe? (as if Governance won't have enough to do.) I don't have a solution to suggest, but this effect of the policy really does suck, and the FAQ does not fix it.

If this is a place where nudity is allowed... then a child avatar should never be there at all, even alone (per the TOS).  If this is a place where nudity is NOT allowed, then Woody is in the wrong.

[Istelathis]

45 minutes ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

Well being rejected or excluded does really suck, and even short people have feelings (it's just that our tears don't take as long to hit the ground! 😢)

😋🦆

 

[Fluffy Sharkfin]

Without wanting to dwell too long on the subject of sim ejections, etc. it is interesting to note the contrast in opinions on how LL governance approaches such issues.

On the one hand you have people here trying to reassure child avatars that LL won't be indiscriminately banning people for "accidents" and will carefully consider the evidence, then on the other you have adult sim owners automatically banning anyone beneath a certain height out of fear that LL will ban them for being in proximity of child avatars without any consideration of facts or circumstance.

[Fluffy Sharkfin]

1 minute ago, Istelathis said:

😋🦆

 

Does it count as self-loathing if I admit I love that song?! 😅

[Rolig Loon]

1 minute ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

Without wanting to dwell too long on the subject of sim ejections, etc. it is interesting to note the contrast in opinions on how LL governance approaches such issues.

On the one hand you have people here trying to reassure child avatars that LL won't be indiscriminately banning people for "accidents" and will carefully consider the evidence, then on the other you have adult sim owners automatically banning anyone beneath a certain height out of fear that LL will ban them for being in proximity of child avatars without any consideration of facts or circumstance.

Yup, and that's where I agree with Luna that there ought to be better communication with landowners, so that they know what they ought to be afraid of or not be afraid of.  They can still ban anyone they like, but they shouldn't be doing it because they think they'll get in trouble with Governance.

[Saraya Starr]

4 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Best. Thread. Evarr!

No, Not really.

[elleevelyn]

28 minutes ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

So in the interest of me understanding would this avatar now be banned as of 6/30 unless the avatar maker released a skin or the body with a modesty panel?

https://marketplace.secondlife.com/p/Yabusaka-Baby-mesh-avatar-B/3584701

If so then LL needs to take things like this OFF the marketplace so that people don't buy it thinking they are able to use them.

I don't think LL thought this through enough.

Linden have thought this thru

any child avatar content which is not compliant with the new rules has to be withdrawn from the market. Linden will (like they always do in change times) allow some latitude for the adjustment to be made but in time all non-compliant content will no longer be available for sale