So what changed in the Terms of Service?

[Starberry Passion]

4 minutes ago, Istelathis said:

😋🦆

 

Okay, this is funny. 😂💀

[Istelathis]

1 minute ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

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

Yes!  (I do too though)

It is okay Fluffy, one day us shorties will join forces and take over the world of Second Life, I have been accumulating an army of us shorties, and they will never expect it!  For too long, us vertically challenged have had to endure being stepped on, no longer!  

[Drayke Newall]

Think this sums up mine and others feelings when we get up in the morning and look at this thread....

Moles would look the same just with toothpicks under their eyelids I would guess...

Edited May 6 by Drayke Newall

[Fluffy Sharkfin]

2 minutes ago, Istelathis said:

Yes!  (I do too though)

It is okay Fluffy, one day us shorties will join forces and take over the world of Second Life, I have been accumulating an army of us shorties, and they will never expect it!  For too long, us vertically challenged have had to endure being stepped on, no longer!  

Yes, we just need to get some reaaally long mesh trench coats and we can stand on each others shoulders and be taller than all of them, and then we can finally find out what they're hiding on the top shelf!

[Persephone Emerald]

3 hours ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

Mu normal skin is a fantasy skin, subtly pink. I like having pale skin, but most skins are so pale you look like a vampire. The subtle pink color gives me a healthy glow.

The downside? if I go out in the sun without spf 10,000 sunblock, i burn super easily

OT - There's a soft pink skin on sale at Lumae that I just bought today. $L 77 for the body, $L 177 for the face (EvoX). I got the brighter pink color yesterday.

[Saraya Starr]

3 hours ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

Ah you're a puppet. I get it now. I'm sad I didn't see it before.

Wow, Kathlen. You really are a bright and shining example of humanity aren't you?

[Kathlen Onyx]

20 minutes ago, elleevelyn said:

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any child avatar content which is not compliant with the new rules has to be withdrawn from the market.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

That's a really good thing then. I had no idea they did that.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Thanks Fluffy! I tagged you on this because I wanted to hear what you had to say about it!

4 hours ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

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).

I think that the part I've highlighted in red is key: there are things here that need to be spelled out much more clearly -- less because we want to handcuff Governance and remove their ability to use their judgment, and more to 1) ensure that landowners understand the system and don't overreact to what they may perceive as perils, and 2) to reassure those representing as children that SL hasn't become even more of a minefield for them than it was before. Which is of course exactly what you say.

And central to that clarification should be this point:

4 hours ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

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?

So, yes, it needs to be emphasized that the onus is not merely on child avatars, but on everyone to ensure that everyone else is "safe." That's one reason I said somewhere waaaaay up above that I'd AR an adult avatar who undressed after knowingly TPing or entering into proximity of a child avatar. Because someone who is potentially endangering nearby child avatars by their behaviour, apparel, or whatever should be held responsible for that, including suspensions or, in extreme cases, even bans. So, to use Qie's example

52 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

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.

 . . . I think it needs to be made clear that the person at fault here is Woody MacNoob. And by "made clear," I don't merely mean that the any penalty exacted by Governance falls in his head -- it has to be clear to the community as a whole that Little Johnny is the one with the "rights" in this instance.

Ensuring that people recognize that is going to be difficult, because it does represent a cultural shift in SL's approach to such things, but it's really important because it will also address the sense, as Qie also says, that Little Johnny and his pint-sized friends are "second class residents on M-rated land." I'm not sure how best to broadcast that message, but we DO need to get away from the prevalent idea, seen in this thread as well as in-world, that child avatars are a "bother," an annoyance, "special cases" that we all wish we didn't have to "deal with." Or, as you put it:

4 hours ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

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.

So, yes, this is a long response more or less agreeing with you.

Edited May 6 by Scylla Rhiadra
Clarity

[Kathlen Onyx]

7 minutes ago, Saraya Starr said:

Wow, Kathlen. You really are a bright and shining example of humanity aren't you?

You have no idea what I'm even talking about. HAHA!

 

[Kathlen Onyx]

3 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

 

 

 . . . I think it needs to be made clear that the person at fault here is Woody MacNoob. And by "made clear," I don't merely mean that the any penalty exacted by Governance falls in his head -- it has to be clear to the community as a whole that Little Johnny is the one with the "rights" in this instance.

So how do we let Woody (brand new avatar 4 hours ago) that he's at fault for being somewhere naked that allows him to be naked?  That might be a stretch.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

19 minutes ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

Yes, we just need to get some reaaally long mesh trench coats and we can stand on each others shoulders and be taller than all of them, and then we can finally find out what they're hiding on the top shelf!

As someone who is relatively tall in RL (5'10"), I have to say I feel a little excluded and discriminated against here.

(Actually, it HAS always felt a bit weird to feel "short" in SL, where I am the same height as in RL, but still have to jump up to reach door handles in some places.)

[Ingrid Ingersoll]

1 hour 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.

They're just playing dumb at this point. As if humans can't recognize a juvenile. I cant tell you how many times I've heard that from them in defence of this crap over the years. 

 

[Luna Bliss]

40 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

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.

Rolig, I think almost everyone on this forum knows this...it's been discussed many, many times -- yes, the sim owner can do whatever they want.

But...that doesn't mean it's automatically the right thing to do, most especially when it disenfranchises a segment of the residents in SL.

If LL could do something to reduce restrictions on those affected it would make things better. And I think they can, through clear definition or rules and adequate education so as many residents as possible are aware what's needed for their personal region.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Just now, Kathlen Onyx said:

So how do we let Woody (brand new avatar 4 hours ago) that he's at fault for being somewhere naked that allows him to be naked?  That might be a stretch.

Well, assuming Governance gets involved at all -- i.e., someone files an AR about this, either against Woody or Little Johnny -- they (Governance) will possibly be acting against the person they perceive as being at fault. If that is Woody (as I think it should be), I'd suggest a forced TP out of there, and a short boilerplate slap on the wrist to ensure that he understands why what he did is a problem.

If no AR is filed, it's largely academic I suppose, but the people there with Little Johnny could put down their bibles long enough to inform him of what he's doing wrong.

[Kathlen Onyx]

3 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Well, assuming Governance gets involved at all -- i.e., someone files an AR about this, either against Woody or Little Johnny -- they (Governance) will possibly be acting against the person they perceive as being at fault. If that is Woody (as I think it should be), I'd suggest a forced TP out of there, and a short boilerplate slap on the wrist to ensure that he understands why what he did is a problem.

If no AR is filed, it's largely academic I suppose, but the people there with Little Johnny could put down their bibles long enough to inform him of what he's doing wrong.

Well that certainly won't be a warm welcome to a new resident. I imagine they might just say screw it and never log in again.

[Rolig Loon]

6 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Rolig, I think almost everyone on this forum knows this...it's been discussed many, many times -- yes, the sim owner can do whatever they want.

But...that doesn't mean it's automatically the right thing to do, most especially when it disenfranchises a segment of the residents in SL.

So, then, let me repeat:

36 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

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.

Amen?

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Just now, Kathlen Onyx said:

Well that certainly won't be a warm welcome to a new resident. I imagine they might just say screw it and never log in again.

I think it can be handled in such a way as not to seem rude or scary. (Although, that said, the boilerplate warnings we use around here are frequently a bit . . . terse.)

I don't think it's right to sacrifice the rights of an existing resident (or a new one for that matter) merely because it is more expedient to do so, and we don't want to lose a new sign-in. And honestly, a new resident who doesn't understand that they have responsibilities to the community, or is uninterested in taking those up, is maybe not someone we want here anyway.

[Fluffy Sharkfin]

1 minute ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

Well that certainly won't be a warm welcome to a new resident. I imagine they might just say screw it and never log in again.

I'd hope that LL would take steps to inform them of rules pertaining to behaviour based on maturity rating while they're in the initial starting area and, preferably, before they have a chance to get naked? 😅

[Annie Evergreen]

1 hour ago, Dark Zebendein said:

Since the new TOS I get this in almost every Adult region --

Your avatar is deemed too short to be in this establishment, please change your avatar and you may return. We only accept Human ADULT avatars.

They're terrified of violating TOS.

The picture you supplied in a post just before this one, shows an avatar with elf ears and what appears to be horns. Perhaps it's the Human issue and not the Age issue that caused you to be removed from their establishment. Many places are strict with their own rules.

[Persephone Emerald]

3 hours ago, Rolig Loon said:

Absolutely.  All avatars are. The question is really "How closely do you identify with your avatar?" 

Some people think that their avatar is just a cartoon that they move around on a screen. Others, like me, feel more connected to their avatar, as if a part of us was actually in world with the avatar.  I am Rolig Loon when I am logged in. The question of "immersion" is a very active question among SL residents.  It's really why a lot of people feel that they are being personally harmed or attacked if something bad happens to their avatar, but other people can just shrug and walk  away. 

If one has multiple avatars, they might also identify with some more so than they do with others.

I consider myself an emersive player, but I don't think my avatars are me - well, Persephone kind of is because she represents me more than the others do.

On the other hand, I don't imagine that I feel things that happen to my avatar. I might feel sexually aroused by what I see in SL, but I don't feel like I'm being touched if my avatar is touched. 

A puppet is a pretty good way to explain an avatar, though the word "avatar" implies that at least some of our consciousness inhabits it.

[Starberry Passion]

2 minutes ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

I'd hope that LL would take steps to inform them of rules pertaining to behaviour based on maturity rating while they're in the initial starting area and, preferably, before they have a chance to get naked? 😅

The funny thing is is that Second life has not been very welcoming in a long time. The more it alienates someone, not talking about child avatars, but I mean in general, the more it will chase away people.

Not to mention, on top of that, expenses, not being able to find help, trying to avoid cliques,

then you have the new auto height kicker on top of that and so many other things that are not very welcoming.

[Fluffy Sharkfin]

2 minutes ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

6 minutes ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

Well that certainly won't be a warm welcome to a new resident. I imagine they might just say screw it and never log in again.

I'd hope that LL would take steps to inform them of rules pertaining to behaviour based on maturity rating while they're in the initial starting area and, preferably, before they have a chance to get naked? 😅

Or, just in case they decide to skip that lesson, how about non-removable modesty layers on all new avatars, it's good enough for child avatars after all.  It would be easier to implement since LL themselves supply the avatar to new residents when they first log in and would prevent accidental nudity and protect new users from running afoul of rules they aren't yet aware of.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 minute ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

Or, just in case they decide to skip that lesson, how about non-removable modesty layers on all new avatars, it's good enough for child avatars after all.  It would be easier to implement since LL themselves supply the avatar to new residents when they first log in and would prevent accidental nudity and protect new users from running afoul of rules they aren't yet aware of.

Right!

So the most common first words of a noob would shift from

"Where I find sekksies?"

to

"Can you help me get these boxers off?"

[Starberry Passion]

3 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

If one has multiple avatars, they might also identify with some more so than they do with others.

I consider myself an emersive player, but I don't think my avatars are me - well, Persephone kind of is because she represents me more than the others do.

On the other hand, I don't imagine that I feel things that happen to my avatar. I might feel sexually aroused by what I see in SL, but I don't feel like I'm being touched if my avatar is touched. 

A puppet is a pretty good way to explain an avatar, though the word "avatar" implies that at least some of our consciousness inhabits it.

Someone of intellect inhabits a puppet as well. An avatar is a puppet for your amusement, just like a doll is.

[Fluffy Sharkfin]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Right!

So the most common first words of a noob would shift from

"Where I find sekksies?"

to

"Can you help me get these boxers off?"

You never know it might also inadvertently improve the quality of conversation you get during IM's from random strangers?!