Qie Niangao Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 2 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said: The TOS I saw quoted had some ambiguity, child avatars were not allowed near Adult activities where adults would be naked, etc. And, child avatars are not allowed to be naked, period (helped by the modesty layer). Are we certain that child avatars are not allowed near non-sexual nude adults on M-rated land? Some discussions leaned towards that being allowed. I doesn't read that way to me, but I do think that's where the fix needs to be applied. Here's the language in the Child Avatar Policy: Quote Residents presenting as Child Avatars shall be prohibited from the following: […] Engaging or participating in any event or location where nudity and/or sexual activity is present, encouraged and/or expected. I don't see a way to read that without forbidding merely being present at a location where nudity is occurring. They could fence that off with more language somehow specifying that it takes more than being in the vicinity to "engage" or "participate" in a "location". Thing is, I think there are a number of participants in this thread (and other residents) primed to read it to forbid child avatars anywhere spontaneous nudity might happen. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 2 hours ago, BilliJo Aldrin said: one should never accept experiences. why would you let someone else control what you see and do? People.wander around with open access on their collars which could allow anyone to.control their avatar in a lot more ways than an experience. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 2 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said: Ok, then. We weren't there, so like all similar situations we only know one side of the story. Very true though as a couple of the Reddit moderators pointed out, the story was becoming so consistent among posted threads, that it is becoming hard to discount that there is much platform banning going on. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said: Quote Engaging or participating in any event or location where nudity and/or sexual activity is present, encouraged and/or expected. I don't see a way to read that without forbidding merely being present at a location where nudity is occurring. They could fence that off with more language somehow specifying that it takes more than being in the vicinity to "engage" or "participate" in a "location". Thing is, I think there are a number of participants in this thread (and other residents) primed to read it to forbid child avatars anywhere spontaneous nudity might happen. Ok, that's a different version than I remember seeing quoted (whether I saw the old version, or some other interpretation or "edition"). Interesting to me, at least, that the discussion at that time dove into the assumptions I listed earlier. ETA: It's the same version, I just missed "engaging or participating" this time. Thanks! Edited May 6 by Love Zhaoying 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aya Sweetheart Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 17 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said: This didn't get much reaction so maybe I should respond since I posed the scenario. Also, it raises a scary specter that would actually drive me from SL, or at least very dramatically reduce the tier I pay. Here's the thing: at least 99% of M-rated land doesn't specify that nudity is or isn't allowed. I don't think I'm alone as a landowner in wanting it exactly that way. Most parcels in SL are M-rated, open to the public, unlisted in Search, unspecified whether nudity is allowed, and get maybe a few visitors on a good day. In my case, nudity is completely acceptable and child avatars are heartily welcomed and they'll be in each other's "presence" perhaps once a month if SL concurrency picks up. So the problem would be rare, but child avatars can never be sure it won't happen at any instant. Because most of my parcels are on M-rated regions, if I don't specify nudity is forbidden, it's allowed by default, but I have every incentive not to make a choice. If I had to choose, I'd rather dump thousands (and thousands) of square meters of M-rated Mainland. And you know what? All that abandoned land would be just as unspecified as before: M-rated (so nudity allowed) but no reasonable expectation of nudity actually occurring anywhere at any particular time. Lindens may not know avatars, but they know Land and concurrency. With these rules, several times a day, somewhere on the M-rated grid, some fully dressed child avatar will be AFK when some nudity happens in their vicinity and the TOS will be broken through no fault of anybody. At the moment, the FAQ dumps this all in the lap of Governance to make judgment calls every time. Ain't gonna work. I see nothing in Moderate settings on SL website that says Nudity allowing is expected... it pretty much hides all types of stuff like that. It would seem that nudity is not default or expected, unless the area specifically permits it. Child Avatars are supposed to not be in places where nudity is expected to happen... and by default I don't see why anyone would expect nudity to happen on moderate regions that don't specifically list that nudity is allowed or indicate in some way its expected, like a nude beach. It would be good if LL would make that crystal clear in the way they write the requirements though... but LL has never been great at being clear. If I saw people running around naked near children avatars on moderate land that doesn't specifically say it allows nudity... I'd ask the person to cover up, or AR them if no other option. I don't see why anyone would take that as the child avatars fault, no matter who was there first 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 4 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said: 9 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said: Ok, then. We weren't there, so like all similar situations we only know one side of the story. Very true though as a couple of the Reddit moderators pointed out, the story was becoming so consistent among posted threads, that it is becoming hard to discount that there is much platform banning going on. Even so, my actual point is - we do not know WHY they were banned from Second Life, what they were actually doing at the time they were "banned" from Second Life, if they had multiple infractions leading up to it, etc. Assume for the sake of argument these weren't just "first time short and/or nude where they should not be". 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 2 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said: Even so, my actual point is - we do not know WHY they were banned from Second Life, what they were actually doing at the time they were "banned" from Second Life, if they had multiple infractions leading up to it, etc. Assume for the sake of argument these weren't just "first time short and/or nude where they should not be". One would have to read the Reddit thread to get the full scoop as I am not going to quote it here verbatim. There was enough mentioned and in follow up responses to raise a flag for those concerned about their inworld investments. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cindy Evanier Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 How times change. Back in 2009 my 5 ft 11 + heels avatar was constantly being pulled up for being a child. 2024 my 5ft 11 + heels is now a giant 6 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 Just now, Arielle Popstar said: One would have to read the Reddit thread to get the full scoop as I am not going to quote it here verbatim. There was enough mentioned and in follow up responses to raise a flag for those concerned about their inworld investments. Sure, sure - if you are banned you lose your investment. I get that part. But without more details - and assuming it is written much like the Medium article, I'm not going to read it - there's no guessing even whether they were just naked (which would be a surprise as a cause to be "banned from Second Life" based on the new TOS) or if something else was going on. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innula Zenovka Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 15 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said: There are an increasing amount of potential infractions that might put one on the wrong end of a ban hammer that it really isn't that safe anymore since Governance seems to go through one's history looking for justifications for why they can ban an account aside for the reported offence. That seems to me a rather odd way to put it. I mean obviously, besides considering the offence itself, Governance are going to look at their records to see if this is a first offence or if someone's a serial offender when deciding on a penalty. To quote the FAQ yet again Quote Depending upon the nature and severity of the violation, Governance has a suspension tree that is utilized to make attempts to educate the Resident first. However, if those attempts fail and the behavior is continued, it will result in termination. For the more severe offenses, the immediate action will still be to terminate their access to Second Life. That is, the policy is, unless the behaviour is completely egregious, the default assumption is that it's caused by ignorance of the rules rather than a conscious decision to go against the ToS. It's maybe worth remembering this, too: Quote Q: I reported someone for sexualized *****, and they are still inworld. Why? A: We investigate every report for sexualized ***** and rely on our thorough investigative process to both validate and prove or disprove the allegations submitted. If the evidence and backing investigation do not yield multiple, verifiable points of proof on an allegation, then no action may be taken. That is, they don't take any action without first assuring themselves it's justified. 2 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 11 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said: I doesn't read that way to me, but I do think that's where the fix needs to be applied. Here's the language in the Child Avatar Policy: I don't see a way to read that without forbidding merely being present at a location where nudity is occurring. They could fence that off with more language somehow specifying that it takes more than being in the vicinity to "engage" or "participate" in a "location". Thing is, I think there are a number of participants in this thread (and other residents) primed to read it to forbid child avatars anywhere spontaneous nudity might happen. Engaging and participating are basically the same thing...to be actively doing something...A child avatar sitting on the beach as naked adults wander by? I'd think that wouldn't constitute engagement nor participation. Engage... to do or take part in something —used with in engage in healthy activities engage in bad conduct 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 Copying it yet again for the sake of it (from the link at the start of the thread): https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Clarification_of_policy_disallowing_ageplay I only added the outer quotes and underlined a few parts to separate sections. "Linden Lab is committed to the safety of children and has zero tolerance towards any material that features or promotes child sexual exploitation. The sexualization/sexual exploitation of children is strictly prohibited. This includes but is not limited to the following: Visual depictions of a child or child avatar engaging in sexually explicit or sexually suggestive acts. Sharing fantasies about or promoting engagement in child sexual exploitation. Sexualized commentaries about or directed at child-presenting avatars and/or any individual that identifies as a child. Links to third-party sites that host child sexual exploitation material. Expressing a desire to obtain materials that feature child sexual exploitation. Recruiting, advertising or expressing an interest in a sex act involving a child, or in harboring and/or transporting a child for sexual purposes. Sending sexually explicit media to a child or child-presenting avatar. Engaging or trying to engage a child or child-presenting avatar in a sexually explicit conversation. Trying to obtain sexually explicit media from a child or child-presenting avatar, or trying to engage a child or child-presenting avatar in sexual activity through blackmail or other incentives. Identifying alleged victims of childhood sexual exploitation by name or image. Promoting or normalizing sexual attraction to minors as a form of identity or sexual orientation. Residents presenting as Child Avatars shall be prohibited from the following: Entering any Region rated Adult. Residents must change to a non-child or non-childlike avatar to visit Adult rated regions. Engaging or participating in any event or location where nudity and/or sexual activity is present, encouraged and/or expected. Wearing genital/sexual attachments including clothing, attachments or HUDs created for and/or worn by child avatars to indicate genitalia, whether visible or not. Being fully nude. Child avatar content creators are required to add a modesty layer which is baked into child avatar skins or bodies, is not transparent, does not match the skin tone, and may not be removed. Child avatars where the focal point of the body is on the breasts, pelvis, or buttocks Participation in lewd or sexual acts in which one or more of the avatars appears to represent minors (or the depiction of such acts in images, video, textures, or text). Content for Child Avatars being sold inworld and/or on Marketplace must comply with the General Content Rating and adhere to the following: Content intended for Child Avatars must be listed as General maturity. Content intended for Child Avatars must not be sexual and/or suggestive in nature. No Adult or Moderate keywords in Marketplace listings on Child avatar content. Child avatar content creators are required to add a modesty layer which is baked into child avatar skins or bodies, is not transparent, does not match the skin tone, and may not be removed." 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 2 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said: Engaging and participating are basically the same thing...to be actively doing something...A child avatar sitting on the beach as naked adults wander by? I'd think that wouldn't constitute engagement nor participation. Engage... to do or take part in something —used with in engage in healthy activities engage in bad conduct Thanks, I was JUST about to post a fresh copy of the new rules above when I saw your post. You bring up EXACTLY what I thought when I previously read it, thank you! I totally agree, with my own spin on it being: "engaging or participating" do not mean the same thing as "merely being present". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qie Niangao Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 5 minutes ago, Aya Sweetheart said: I see nothing in Moderate settings on SL website that says Nudity allowing is expected... it pretty much hides all types of stuff like that. It would seem that nudity is not default or expected, unless the area specifically permits it. I don't see that at all, and I'm sure it would come as a huge surprise to most Moderate landowners that they need to specify nudity is allowed in order to get naked on their own beach. The way it's specified in the Maturity Ratings knowledge base article (included by reference in the SL Terms and Conditions) is by nudity being restricted from General: "… not allowed to advertise or make available content or activity that is sexually explicit, violent, or depicts nudity" but not restricted from Moderate: "… accommodates most of the non-adult activities common in Second Life". There's a whole long history of how and where maturity ratings have been defined, going back to 2007, so I could easily be overlooking some more succinct specification of how nudity is assumed to be allowed on M-rated land. But in the minds of most who own all that M-rated land, I'm very sure that's the assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 15 minutes ago, Aya Sweetheart said: I see nothing in Moderate settings on SL website that says Nudity allowing is expected... it pretty much hides all types of stuff like that. It would seem that nudity is not default or expected, unless the area specifically permits it. Child Avatars are supposed to not be in places where nudity is expected to happen... and by default I don't see why anyone would expect nudity to happen on moderate regions that don't specifically list that nudity is allowed or indicate in some way its expected, like a nude beach. It would be good if LL would make that crystal clear in the way they write the requirements though... but LL has never been great at being clear. If I saw people running around naked near children avatars on moderate land that doesn't specifically say it allows nudity... I'd ask the person to cover up, or AR them if no other option. I don't see why anyone would take that as the child avatars fault, no matter who was there first https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Adult_Content_FAQ Is simple nudity without sex Adult? Depending on context, nudity may not require an Adult rating. For example all of the following could be rated Moderate: A nude beach without sexual activity. Skin vendors showing a nude skin to display the product. Nude art that is not sexual. Strip clubs that do not use adult words in search or host sex furniture. Depending on the context, exposed genitalia may not be considered Adult. For example: Hanging out at a nude beach would be fine. Walking around pants-less on the mainland could be inappropriate. Non-sexualized depictions of nudity are Moderate NOT Adult. i would assume the opposite of you. Unless a region specifically says NO nudity, expect that you may encounter it. 4 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qie Niangao Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 7 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said: Engaging and participating are basically the same thing...to be actively doing something...A child avatar sitting on the beach as naked adults wander by? I'd think that wouldn't constitute engagement nor participation. Engage... to do or take part in something —used with in engage in healthy activities engage in bad conduct Do you think that's how people read it? You don't think "location" and "presence" makes "participating" include passive proximity? Because I sure think that interpretation will generate a whole lot of ARs. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 1 minute ago, Qie Niangao said: Do you think that's how people read it? You don't think "location" and "presence" makes "participating" include passive proximity? Because I sure think that interpretation will generate a whole lot of ARs. I think it needs clarification. @Rowan Amore, do you recall clarification of this part in the FAQ's? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said: Sure, sure - if you are banned you lose your investment. I get that part. But without more details - and assuming it is written much like the Medium article, I'm not going to read it - there's no guessing even whether they were just naked (which would be a surprise as a cause to be "banned from Second Life" based on the new TOS) or if something else was going on. I've never once seen anyone admit to doing anything wrong before they got banned. People aren't going to admit, why yes..I was involved in such and such behavior. Edited May 6 by Rowan Amore 5 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 4 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said: Walking around pants-less on the mainland could be inappropriate. I thought this was odd when I read it previously, because it stands out as the only "negative example", in the middle of the list. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 7 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said: I think it needs clarification. @Rowan Amore, do you recall clarification of this part in the FAQ's? Q: If someone is walking through a region wearing exposed genitalia and walks past me (a child avatar), will I be in trouble if someone takes a picture and reports me? A: No, our investigative process can determine accidental exposure. Again, child avatars should not be engaging or participating in any event or location where nudity and/or sexual activity is present, encouraged and/or expected. The presence of adult content does not warrant the expectation of use. 4 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 4 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said: I've never once saw anyone admit to doing anything wrong before they got banned. People aren't going to admit, why yes..I was involved in such and such behavior. The emphasis on "loss of investment" doesn't sufficiently convince me in the arguments presented here. However, if the threat of "losing one's investment" causes them to follow the rules, then great! Whatever it takes. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said: I thought this was odd when I read it previously, because it stands out as the only "negative example", in the middle of the list. Maybe, since it says "could be inappropriate", it's because you can walk from a Moderate area into a General area.without paying attention. Edited May 6 by Rowan Amore 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 5 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said: Q: If someone is walking through a region wearing exposed genitalia and walks past me (a child avatar), will I be in trouble if someone takes a picture and reports me? A: No, our investigative process can determine accidental exposure. Again, child avatars should not be engaging or participating in any event or location where nudity and/or sexual activity is present, encouraged and/or expected. The presence of adult content does not warrant the expectation of use. I don't see any way to interpret that except, "it was ok to be there" (assuming it was a Mature region). The "exposure" to adult avatar nudity was "incidental" to (coincided with) the child avatar being somewhere the nudity was "not unexpected", the emphasis of the FAQ being on the "picture". If the child avatar didn't belong there, the FAQ would have been totally different, you'd think. But, the rating and expectation of nudity are assumed, since not part of the scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 1 minute ago, Innula Zenovka said: That seems to me a rather odd way to put it. I mean obviously, besides considering the offence itself, Governance are going to look at their records to see if this is a first offence or if someone's a serial offender when deciding on a penalty. After a 160+ pages in this thread alone about all the ins and outs of the new policies and the numerous ways it can now impact on various avatars, my comment about the increased amount of infractions seems pretty spot on. Quote FAQ Depending upon the nature and severity of the violation, Governance has a suspension tree that is utilized to make attempts to educate the Resident first. However, if those attempts fail and the behavior is continued, it will result in termination. For the more severe offenses, the immediate action will still be to terminate their access to Second Life. Have we seen even one person relate getting a reeducation letter? Show me the post, please. Maybe this is planned for the future but it doesn't seem to have happened yet. All I've heard and has been related is either nothing resulting from an AR or a ban. Nothing in between. Quote That is, the policy is, unless the behaviour is completely egregious, the default assumption is that it's caused by ignorance of the rules rather than a conscious decision to go against the ToS. That is what the policy from this point forward? Have you seen any proof that it was the actual policy in past? Even if they had it, it leaves the question whether it was actually followed. There is legitimate questions about that. One should be careful of "default assumptions". I think for many it helps them feel safe and secure in spite of evidence to the contrary. Your comment:It surely is worth remembering what the FAQ says: Quote Q: I reported someone for sexualized *****, and they are still inworld. Why? A: We investigate every report for sexualized ***** and rely on our thorough investigative process to both validate and prove or disprove the allegations submitted. If the evidence and backing investigation do not yield multiple, verifiable points of proof on an allegation, then no action may be taken. But again, for those where it might have been a one of case, why hasn't anyone received a warning letter and shared it on one of the multiple other mediums? Maybe the Reddit mods and certainly the mods here would close and delete those sort of posts quickly though my personal opinion is that they should leave them up as warning to others that these policies are actually followed rather then keeping them secret and in the dark. Any case there would be those who share about in private conversations about these supposed warning letters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innula Zenovka Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 4 hours ago, brodiac90 said: What about experiences? Experience teleports can't, as far as I know, over-ride your preferred maturity settings, so if you keep your preferences set to G and M unless you particularly want to visit Adult land, the teleport will fail and you'll see a message saying that the maturity rating of your destination exceeds that set in your preferences. Experiences can run only by the permission of the landowner, and you have to be a premium member to own and write scripts for an experience, or to have been authorised by the experience owner to compile scripts set to that experience, so they're not readily usable as a casual griefing tool. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts