So what changed in the Terms of Service?

[BilliJo Aldrin]

1 hour ago, Starberry Passion said:

Please try to keep it civil.

Is stating an obvious truth now considered being uncivil?

[Alwin Alcott]

3 minutes ago, Starberry Passion said:

The E.U don't give a damn about U.S. Laws .. made me not give a damn about what you have to say

didn't see anyone say that, and with your last wordt you again show you'r not discussing.

[Alwin Alcott]

4 minutes ago, Starberry Passion said:

So if someone saw you in real life and threaten to shoot you or someone you know or someone close by in the face, you're saying that that's not only a threat and that it's only for kids?

If someone says "I'm going to report you, for fraud if you don't correct this." Is that not a threat?

If someone says "I'll wreck your business if this gets out" Is this not a threat?

"I'm going to call the police if you don't leave" is this not a threat?

"I'd hate that anything were to happen to such a nice person such as you." This not a threat? This is a vague threat.

Anyways, Quartz said he doesn't want to close the thread so keep on topic, that's all I said.

good lord... you compare all that to what Quartz tried to say?

keep posting on topic= a gun in your face.... freaking weird.

[Dorientje Woller]

1 minute ago, Alwin Alcott said:

didn't see anyone say that, and with your last wordt you again show you'r not discussing.

Still, I don't believe she understands it, but let me give an example that she may understand. Suppose she is a car manufacturor and according the American/US norms her cars are road legal. But, according the EU norms, they are not. Does she thinks she is able to export her cars to the EU, without adaptation to make them road legal in the EU ... Nah, I don't think so.

[Starberry Passion]

Just now, Dorientje Woller said:

Still, I don't believe she understands it, but let me give an example that she may understand. Suppose she is a car manufacturor and according the American/US norms her cars are road legal. But, according the EU norms, they are not. Does she thinks she is able to export her cars to the EU, without adaptation to make them road legal in the EU ... Nah, I don't think so.

I have posted several posts that have said "Second life changed these rules because they want to do business with other countries." Several times. Literally.

Your words, even though I said it's not Illegal in the U.S. said it was B.S. when i was talking about the U.S. itself. So You don't understand.

[MissSweetViolet]

On 5/5/2024 at 11:44 PM, Scylla Rhiadra said:

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

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:

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

 . . . 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:

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

This^

19 hours ago, Vanity Fair said:

*sigh*

The community forum moderators, in trying to wrangle this very long thread, have messed things up, so that any links in my blogpost about this kerfuffle, to particular comments I quoted in this thread, will likely fail! It's the most recent blogpost on my blog.

I have updated the link in a special announcement at the top of my blog post, but I do not have time to go through and update every single link back to here.

The address of my blog is in my signature line, which is not turned on by default in the forum view settings. To change this, go into your account settings as follows:

You can change them pretty easy by changing the last 3 numbers in the number after topic in the URL. The old one was 511614, so changing the 614 to 723 should fix it.

18 hours ago, Chery Amore said:

I wanted to go back to something I read earlier and add too it .. sorry if I can't remember who said it. 

I think there should be modesty layers on starter avatars. It could be part of the learning process or even agreement process. Maybe wipe the library.. I always hated the library with all those avatars.  Put all that stuff in a starter "freebie" store. 

There could be a way to switch to the adult version of the newest starter avatar if you want to present as an adult in second life... but you'd have to freebie buy it...  With it you get a lesson on maturity ratings and your responsibilities as a resident.

I don't know if it should be encouraged but what about starter child avatars?

I think this would be great actually.

7 hours ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

I haven't seen ONE post by a creator of body's or skins questioning anything...like what a modesty panel should look like. I still find that odd. Probably a good thing or they would get piled on.

I'm still thinking they got some sort of separate communication about it. 

I know Toddleedoo's creator received no communication from LL, she found out from the announcement. 

3 hours ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

Adult avatars are NOT the ones that are mainly soliciting ***p**y. It's the Child avatars. Imagine how many child avatars an adult avi needs to IM to find one that is into that. I imagine a long time. Child avatars know where to seek the adult where that is their knk.

and yes! I know most Child Avatars are not doing this. Please don't quote me and say that.

Unfortunately, I fear that in time, the ones causing all the trouble will simply do it on M or G rated land and the cycle continues.

Not been my experience so far. I've been in SL over 5 years and part time child avatar almost 3. I've never once been hit on by a child or even a teen avatar.  

That being said, no one has ever hit on me while in my child avatar, which I assume is because I keep to child sims or home while wearing her.

2 hours ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

Ok let's say that's the reason.  Why do you have to have a modesty panel on the top. The adult can't upskirt your top. 

Why require a modesty panel that can't be removed when you simply can ask the Child avatar to wear BOM panties and bra/tshirt or alpha out the bits?

I'll save you time and tell you why. It's because the pervy child avatars are giving otherwise law abiding child avatars a bad name by removing their clothes.

You're welcome.

If Maitreya chose to go that route they would have to do some kind of built in patch version because of the mesh definition in those areas, since the FAQ and updated stated no genitalia or anything that implies it.

-----

With being all caught up now, it's almost 4:30 a.m. x.x I'm off to sleep.

[Dorientje Woller]

1 minute ago, Starberry Passion said:

I have posted several posts that have said "Second life changed these rules because they want to do business with other countries." Several times. Literally.

Your words, even though I said it's not Illegal in the U.S. said it was B.S. when i was talking about the U.S. itself. So You don't understand.

And I said that we, if SL/LL want the share of the market in the EU, don't care if it's not illegal or legal in the US, nor do we care where LL has their headquaters, even if there are situated on the moon. That means if LL doesn't take actions to comply to the EU, the EU is entitled, in worst case scenario, to block the product, SL, of Linden Labs. That means no growth, loss of a marketshare, loss of a significant usersbase. 

[Starberry Passion]

Everything I've stated is the same as what was stated even back then As I have said before, It is legal in the U.S. but Second Life wants to expand and as I have Stated several times, I am in favor of Second life expanding

[Qie Niangao]

4 hours ago, Vivienne Schell said:

The same happened to gazillion of people who bought some scripted stuff ages ago which was rendered obsolete by LSL changes. They did not make up 200 pages of whining over that.

? What changes were those? Sorry to stray off-topic, but I'm trying to remember. Some stuff broke when Havok updated like fifteen years ago (and I still mourn Beatfox Xevious's brilliant physical windchimes) but that didn't affect "gazillions of people". Some scripts undoubtedly exploited bugs that got fixed. Collision sprites are apparently permanently broken but that's only incidentally script-affecting. XMLRPCs were finally retired recently after being deprecated (with good reason) for many years, but hardly anybody ever used those anyway. I'm genuinely curious what common script functions weren't at least kept running for backwards compatibility (even if they won't compile today).

[BilliJo Aldrin]

12 minutes ago, Starberry Passion said:

Everything I've stated is the same as what was stated even back then As I have said before, It is legal in the U.S. but Second Life wants to expand and as I have Stated several times, I am in favor of Second life expanding

LL banned this stuff years ago, call it good and carry on, no need for all these new rules which will do nothing further to stop it,

[BilliJo Aldrin]

oh wait, never mind, it will give the ILLUSION of trying to stop it

LL: we did everything we could.. honest we did

[BilliJo Aldrin]

Since I have nothing further to add, I should take my leave, and let the rest of you hash out the future of SL 😁

[Persephone Emerald]

3 hours ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

SL has THREE ratings.

PG-16.

18.

R.

People Pretending to be minors are BANNED from the R rated regions. They MUST avoid 18 rated regions if 18 rated stuff is happening, like nudity. They are advised to keep to the PG-16 rated regions.

No. SL has 3 ratings:

General = No nudity. No sex. No violence. Safe for work, kids, grandparents or church ladies. PG-16 makes sense in that people are supposed to be at least 16 to use SL, but PG movies could show brief nudity and violence. 

Moderate = 18+, Nudity ok, no public sex, no advertised sex, no extreme violence. I consider Moderate to be sort of like RL, where common sense should tell you what's appropriate. It's kind of like a PG rating for a movie, but not really, because there are not such strict controls as movie ratings have.

Adult = pretty much anything goes except sex with child avatars or pictures of such. Activity might range from PG to XXX. 

Perhaps I'm splitting hairs, but I think it's important to clarify that SL maturity ratings are not quite the same as movie ratings. People using child avatars are allowed in Moderate regions, but must avoid being around sex or nudity. 

[Persephone Emerald]

3 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Not BoM, I said the skins that are in the maitreya hud which i suppose are applied. I said BoM layers could be applied over top. And Maitreya I think should be willing because after all, there are a lot of avatars out there who look to be between 0-18 years of age that may be classed as being a "child" avatar.

Yes I know how common they are in IMVU and have been for years for anyone without AP.

Just to clarify, if one uses BOM on a mesh body, this disables the applier skins from the body's HUD. It's either applier or BOM, but never both on mesh bodies.

Maitreya does have an optional BOM layer, however, which can hide the geometry of nipples and genitalia and which could be useful for teen avatars to represent with a less sexualized body.

[Qie Niangao]

3 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

Just to clarify, if one uses BOM on a mesh body, this disables the applier skins from the body's HUD. It's either applier or BOM, but never both on mesh bodies.

I don't know Maitreya, but onion-skin-layer bodies can have BoM and non-BoM layers intermixed in any order. It's easier to do with a Mod perm body, but it's do-able with no-Mod junk like Legacy, too, using an applier to paint the system BoM textures on a higher layer.

This all makes the whole magic modesty patch stuff even less meaningful, but it's kind of moot. They have to do something to appear to be doing something, so even if it's just silly, it's not worth putting up more of a fuss about it than I have already.

[Grayson Blakewell]

On 5/6/2024 at 3:21 AM, Starberry Passion said:

That still doesn't make it right or give an excuse. Yes they can do what they want and kick how they want or do what they want but The T.O.S. states that height is not an issue, it's still discrimination based on height.

It's in their right to do so, can't do anything about it, I understand that but it doesn't make it right.

100 % correct, there will be people who are legitimately adult but.. other people have different ideas in what collaborate shape and size. A lot of people will be affected and wrongfully reported. I mean if you read the TOS , its basically stating that these factors are at the residents reasonable judgement . I seen enough American police cams and crazy Karens to work out a good 80% of the SL residency (including their entitled thoughts), are in no way centered on proper judgements nor actually reasonable at any life factor. The personality dictates their opinions are without question and mock, that they are special and entitled.  They will shout, scream at people who have any opposing argument and /or, fire a report off without thought because it is anger and indignant attitudes that make them feel " I have power, this is my world, you are offending me... this is how you should look, why are you like this ? ... this offends me!!"

  There are a lot of embittered, angry, hostile and frankly very malicious people on SL, mostly females. They don't even like each other. Yeah shoot me, not a misogynist but talking truths. Look how many were out seeking Linden Staff resignations without so much of an enquiry. And even still after that, they are not content and on a hot bed of aggressive feedback. This is "reasonable" people? 

 

When you have people like that, that's a lit stick of dynamite. 

 

 

Edited May 7 by Grayson Blakewell

[Wincil]

Tbh Im also in favour of Second life expanding.

Edited May 7 by Wincil

[Grayson Blakewell]

4 minutes ago, Wincil said:

Tbh Im also in favor of Second life expanding. 

I am too but NOT when they are creating bad decisions as they are doing now. They live in a bubble, the world and peoples rights and expectations have moved on and constantly improving into the digital network. The days of grey areas are closing in. California rules no longer apply to people outside of that, they have own expectations. But I can tell you right now, the moves they are making is open to a lot of complaints on consumer rights. Not just on this but a lot of other factors too...including the lack of controlling its own residents (all of them)  in how they act, what they say, what they do within the public domain without much policing. 

[Starberry Passion]

5 minutes ago, Grayson Blakewell said:

I am too but NOT when they are creating bad decisions as they are doing now. They live in a bubble, the world and peoples rights and expectations have moved on and constantly improving into the digital network. The days of grey areas are closing in. California rules no longer apply to people outside of that, they have own expectations. But I can tell you right now, the moves they are making is open to a lot of complaints on consumer rights. Not just on this but a lot of other factors too...including the lack of controlling its own residents (all of them)  in how they act, what they say, what they do within the public domain without much policing. 

Too much policing can lose a large amount of people, especially in a world of Fantasy. If Fantasy becomes too real then it is no longer fantasy, it's just another reality.

People escape into fantasy to escape reality.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

1 hour ago, Persephone Emerald said:

Just to clarify, if one uses BOM on a mesh body, this disables the applier skins from the body's HUD. It's either applier or BOM, but never both on mesh bodies.

Maitreya does have an optional BOM layer, however, which can hide the geometry of nipples and genitalia and which could be useful for teen avatars to represent with a less sexualized body.

I thought the whole purpose of BOM was to negate the use of aplliers, since as i understand it with appliers you basically are wearing three copies of the body. BOM was supposed to reduce complexity, kind of hard to do if you are still wearing the applier layers

[Grayson Blakewell]

10 minutes ago, Starberry Passion said:

Too much policing can lose a large amount of people, especially in a world of Fantasy. If Fantasy becomes too real then it is no longer fantasy, it's just another reality.

People escape into fantasy to escape reality.

But... through this TOS move you have also just cut off a pile of people who were NOT even involved in *****, who are mostly customers who not only pay into a system but also pay thousands of dollars into the financial coffers that keep LL in business. Regardless of ones thoughts of kids in SL, that's not even the issue. The issue is they are people (adult people), who are customers and pay into a system. if you treat them differently and give them a third of a service lower than a freeloader ( we need to talk about free accounts too and how that's being abused regarding trolls and resident abuses), there are big issues. That just the start of it. The family communities have never been involved in these areas, they are the ones suffering.

Fantasy to escape reality is exactly that, so why are we now proposing that very right that we enjoy to take it away from others?

Through something I may add that was brought up through LL own internal office drama , NOT an incident in what Kid avatars or anyone else was doing ? 

Its an Oxymoron. 

Edited May 7 by Grayson Blakewell

[BilliJo Aldrin]

8 minutes ago, Starberry Passion said:

Too much policing can lose a large amount of people, especially in a world of Fantasy. If Fantasy becomes too real then it is no longer fantasy, it's just another reality.

People escape into fantasy to escape reality.

Its certain peoples fantasies that all the uproar is about.

[Starberry Passion]

1 minute ago, Grayson Blakewell said:

But... through this TOS move you have also just cut off a pile of people who were NOT even involved in *****, who are mostly customers who not only pay into a system but also pay thousands of dollars into the financial coffers that keep LL in business. Regardless of ones thoughts of kids in SL, that's not even the issue. The issue is they are people (adult people), who are customers and pay into a system. if you treat them differently and give them a third of a service better than a freeloader, there are big issues. That just the start of it. The family communities have never been involved in these areas, they are the ones suffering.

Fantasy to escape reality is exactly that, so why are we now proposing that very right that we enjoy to take it away from others?

Through something I may add that was brought up through LL own internal office drama , NOT an incident in what Kid avatars or anyone else was doing ? 

Its an Oxymoron. 

The reason this is being done is because there is policing involved. They changed the ToS and are policing it more.

If Second Life is a world of Fantasy and second life advertises itself as a virtual world where you can be anything, do anything, build anything, create anything. If it's saying "Hey, escape the real world with us for a few hours" If they start to police people as a whole then they would become false advertisement.

A lot of people push for it to become reality, and too real pushes people away.

Second life hasn't been very newcomer friendly, it separates its users, people tell people how to look still.

What head you can wear

[Starberry Passion]

1 minute ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

Its certain peoples fantasies that all the uproar is about.

I don't think we were even talking about that, we were talking about as a whole, not A.P.

[Grayson Blakewell]

5 minutes ago, Starberry Passion said:

The reason this is being done is because there is policing involved. They changed the ToS and are policing it more.

If Second Life is a world of Fantasy and second life advertises itself as a virtual world where you can be anything, do anything, build anything, create anything. If it's saying "Hey, escape the real world with us for a few hours" If they start to police people as a whole then they would become false advertisement.

A lot of people push for it to become reality, and too real pushes people away.

Second life hasn't been very newcomer friendly, it separates its users, people tell people how to look still.

What head you can wear

Absolutely not. I can go and have done to head to the SL welcome area where I can see badly created adults fully nude, with all female and male appendages as the first thing a newcomer sees. There is not even an age check to enter SL. Can you imagine the uproar if an RL parent saw their kid logging into SL even into the G and moderate areas, to see all sorts of undress and vulgarity in front of them? Bad enough I am sure a good majority of adult people would not wish to see XXX rated material in places they do not expect to see it.

 

They are NOT policing SL properly, I said ALL residents not just the bias that the chosen scapegoats are hot topics. There is much...much more!! 

Edited May 7 by Grayson Blakewell