Sammy Huntsman Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 5 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said: The Needs of the Many outweigh the Needs of the Few. Off-topic, but I love that Leonard Nimoy quote. I do however agree with this sentiment. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Persephone Emerald Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 I expect those responsible for writing and disseminating policy at LL will be meeting with the Lab's lawyers today to try to clarify this policy better. We may then see a restatement of this Child Avatar policy later this week, at which time this thread might be closed and perhaps a new one will be started. Areas of the new policy that are clear to me: Avatars that can reasonably thought to look like children or present as children are not allowed on Adult rated land. If they accidentally find themselves on Adult land, they should leave immediately. Child avatars (see my definition above) are not to engage in sexual activities, be present where sexual activities, Adult activities, or nudity would reasonably be expected. If they find themselves at such a location, they should leave immediately. Child avatars are now better protected from sexual solicitation and behavior toward them, because they can AR those who do this. Areas that are not clear to me: 1. What is a baked on, unremovable modesty layer? If one uses BOM, don't those layers bake onto the skin by definition? If one uses a system avatar, how can a skin or BOM layer be unremovable? If one uses a mesh body, how can a modesty layer be unremovable? What should a modesty layer look like? Please provide examples for both young child avatars and for teens, dolls and anime characters, as these last 3 examples might be considered "edge cases". Must toddlers have their chests covered? Must a child-presenting avatar have their chest covered if they are under 13 years old? 2. How will Governance handle "edge cases" in which one person may consider an avatar to be a child but another might not? How will Governance handle youth-presenting avatars who claim to be intersex, trans, or gender non-conforming? 3. Should nudity be "expected" at all Moderate beaches, pools, clubs, skin stores, clothing stores, shopping events, and residential regions? 4. Should a child-presenting avatar expect to be ARed if they are naked (without modesty covers) where no other avatars are visible? Examples: trying on skins, dressing, taking a bath inside their own home. 3 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wincil Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 (edited) Us millennials are not a minority. Edited May 6 by Wincil 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Sharkfin Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 4 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said: Off-topic, but I love that Leonard Nimoy quote. I do however agree with this sentiment. I don't, because it's often just a different "few" that dictate what the needs of the "many" are and which other "few" have to make the sacrifice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sammy Huntsman Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 1 minute ago, Wincil said: "Somebody who has proven very unreliable in everything they have said." Lol. I mean you were the one who said Alternate facts are valid. So I mean you have been pretty unreliable in what you said. Lol 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sammy Huntsman Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 Just now, Fluffy Sharkfin said: I don't, because it's often just a different "few" that dictate what the needs of the "many" are and which other "few" have to make the sacrifice! The point means, that they want to make the majority of users in SL happy. As if they lose them, that could mean catastrophe. That is literally how a business runs. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 4 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said: 2. How will Governance handle "edge cases" in which one person may consider an avatar to be a child but another might not? I suspect this won't be answered directly, as it would give more ways for people to try and "get around the rules". 5 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said: How will Governance handle youth-presenting avatars who claim to be intersex, trans, or gender non-conforming? My guess is, "cover up". Don't young "male-presenting avatars" also have to cover their male "nipple area" already with the new rules? It sounds silly doesn't it - since they don't have to in RL? (Sorry if the answer is "no".) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wincil Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 (edited) Cancel culture is bad. Edited May 6 by Wincil 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alwin Alcott Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 35 minutes ago, Starberry Passion said: The thing I don't understand is why doesn't Linden Lab just go into Second Life and ask the opinions of all that play there, incentivize a meeting and give people a reason to come, allow them to give their personal opinion, and the opinion of newcomers and how they can make newcomers feel safer and more welcome And there is Twitter, many Second Life users use twitter now, though i hate twitter, those who are actually always inside of twitter do use that. As their opinion. Soft follows a lot of the creators that some people dislike in this forum, have Soft ask their opinion or something instead of just following a forum post that doesn't even have a lot of people in it. Everyone already agrees with the child avatar and the modesty and the safety of child avatar, but the fact that if GenZ and Millennials are the active users, as a whole, (as someone said) then they should go look to see what is the normal in aesthetics and looks and what people want changed and how to make second life better for everyone. why would they go to external media while they have their own forums and blogs? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BilliJo Aldrin Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 32 minutes ago, Madi Melodious said: So, some of us adorable little avatars are having issues with the new tos because some of us make us feel like it makes us second class citizens on public moderate land. An in a way it does because it puts the proof of burden on the child avatar to prove their innocence if a naked adults show up on moderate land. I know that is now how the tos meant it to be but that is how it comes across. I think the following language should be put in the new tos, in more tos like language of course. In the presents of a child avatar on public moderate land, such as the Blake, all Adults must be clothed. This removes the burden of proof on the child avatar and will also prevent fake abuse reports, thus making LL job easier too. Now I can already here some of the protest starting from the gallon size avatars out there. I will remind you that you have a entire continent and hundreds of sims to run naked in. This is all we have now. Perhaps the rule should be changed so nudity on moderate land is only permitted on private parcels that have the same restrictions as for adult furniture. That way child avatars don’t run the risk of being around nude adults. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 3 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said: 5 minutes ago, Wincil said: "Somebody who has proven very unreliable in everything they have said." Lol. I mean you were the one who said Alternate facts are valid. So I mean you have been pretty unreliable in what you said. Lol Translation: They disagreed with me, therefore I will say they are "unreliable". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madi Melodious Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 9 hours ago, Kathlen Onyx said: I never got to experience childhood the first time around. I was put in foster homes, beat by my parents, many other things I won't type here, bla bla bla. I've never once thought to be a child to relive it the right way. Also, SL is not a therapy site. It's a social platform. It may go away by tomorrow morning. Then what are you going to do? For something that is not a "therapy site" that seems to be one of its largest uses. First They Got Sick, Then They Moved Into a Virtual Utopia | WIRED I personally know, or know of, several members of SL that use it just for that. Including a husband and wife team who's husband is a paraplegic. They live their entire marriage through SL. A "therapy site" it might not have meant to be but that is what it is being used for by a huge percent of the user base. An in that area, SL is doing a lot of good. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Sharkfin Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 1 minute ago, Sammy Huntsman said: The point means, that they want to make the majority of users in SL happy. As if they lose them, that could mean catastrophe. That is literally how a business runs. I agree but I still don't think that the few should have to bear the brunt of the new restrictions while the many just sit back and carry on as usual. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalificent Corvinus Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Wincil said: Cancel culture is bad. And yet you've tried cancel culturing @Rowan Amore (a comment about ghettos I'd have reported you for If I was her), you've tried cancel culturing "boomers", and "people who are not rabid fans of anime, and people over 5'4, and all manner of groups, in many posts scattered over 170 pages. Complaining about cancel culture like that is what the Boomers, and GenXs and other people who can use "big words" call "Blatant Hypocrisy". They are just too nice to say it to your face. Edited May 6 by Zalificent Corvinus 4 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sammy Huntsman Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 5 minutes ago, Wincil said: Cancel culture is bad. How is this cancel culture? People voiced their distaste with the current rules and how they were worded, and LL changed it. That isn't cancel culture. That is called listening to your customer base. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sammy Huntsman Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 2 minutes ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said: I agree but I still don't think that the few should have to bear the brunt of the new restrictions while the many just sit back and carry on as usual. That is part of life, as unfair as it is. That is just part of life. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wincil Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 1 minute ago, Zalificent Corvinus said: And yet you've tried cancel culturing @Rowan Amore (a comment about ghettos I'd have reported you for I'f I was her), you've tried cancel culturing "boomers", and "people who arte not rabid fans of anime, and people over 5'4, and all manner of groups, in many posts scattered over 170 pages. Complaining about cancel culture like that is what the Boomers, and GenXs and other people who can use "big words" call "Blatant Hypocrisy". They are just too nice to say it to your face. Again im not the one who is cancel culturing 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Sharkfin Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 Just now, Sammy Huntsman said: That is part of life, as unfair as it is. That is just part of life. Only for as long as we allow it to be. As the saying goes... "Life is what you make it!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 3 minutes ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said: I agree but I still don't think that the few should have to bear the brunt of the new restrictions while the many just sit back and carry on as usual. Forcing people on the Blake Sea to sail fully clothed sounds unfair given the better interpretations we've had of the new rules. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Rhiadra Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 6 hours ago, Kathlen Onyx said: Actually the analogy is incorrect. It's more like me holding my door open and waving people into my home, not knowing who they are, and then complaining that they robbed me. I should have never invited them in my house in the first place which makes that totally my fault. In reality if I was standing at my door with it open and someone tried to walk past me I'd slam the door shut on them. I.E. not accept the TP because I don't know them. Your analogy assumes that the person TPing is not clicking the button to "accept". Once you click accept it's all on you. Besides the person who said they were being lured was offered a TP to a place called Sexual Fantasies not Babies R US so they totally disclosed what the TP was all about. Your analogy may work if the person sent a TP called Babies R Us and when they got there the place was called Sexual Fantasies. However if it's just a TP called Babies R us and that would me I'd be questioning it if it came from someone I don't know. The person doing the inviting is being scummy but the end result is that it's totally in the person that is accepting the TP's control. Come on now...we are ALL adults, or should be. If this were a real life aged child I'd consider it but they are not. Well, sure, if you like? It's just an analogy. My simple point was that, however culpable the person accepting the TP might be for foolishly accepting a TP, and a failure to properly check the nature of the place to which they were being TPed, the person who sent the TP remains just as much to blame. Their guilt isn't diminished by the fact that they managed to find an idiot who'd accept it. (This does assume that the person sending the TP is aware that they are sending it to a child avatar, however.) EVEN if the person accepting the TP knowingly and willingly accepts a TP to a place where they know, or should know, they will be breaking the ToS, the person sending the TP is not merely an active participant, but actually the instigator in this violation and merits the full force of any disciplinary action taken by Governance. That may, or may not, also be true of the person accepting the TP, depending on circumstances, but someone knowingly luring / inviting a child avatar to a place where their presence would represent a violation of the ToS is not merely "scummy": they are guilty of breaking the rules regarding a*eplay and can (and should) be ARed. Blame or guilt isn't a zero-sum game, in other words: the guilt of one party doesn't diminish the culpability of the other. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 3 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said: How is this cancel culture? People voiced their distaste with the current rules and how they were worded, and LL changed it. That isn't cancel culture. That is called listening to your customer base. Forcing people to change maybe is tantamount to canceling? Or those who want to cancel SL because they don't like the changes? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sammy Huntsman Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 Just now, Fluffy Sharkfin said: Only for as long as we allow it to be. As the saying goes... "Life is what you make it!" Yeah life is what you make it, means your life. Do you play the victim or do you just not give a crap about certain things? Do you choose to be positive or negative? That is what it means. Not changing life for others around you, to a point where they have to see it your way or they are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wincil Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 3 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said: How is this cancel culture? People voiced their distaste with the current rules and how they were worded, and LL changed it. That isn't cancel culture. That is called listening to your customer base. Why would there need to be distaste with the current rules and how they were worded anyway? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Wincil said: Again im not the one who is cancel culturing Almost no one here is doing that and certainly not me...ngl. We're discussing how LL needs to clarify certain aspects of their new rules concerning children not only for the children's sake but also for the adults so they DO NOT FALSELY AR child avatars. Edited May 6 by Rowan Amore 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Sharkfin Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 1 minute ago, Love Zhaoying said: Forcing people on the Blake Sea to sail fully clothed sounds unfair given the better interpretations we've had of the new rules. Being forced to wear clothes in an area is more unfair than being forced to not visit the area at all, really? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts