So what changed in the Terms of Service?

[BilliJo Aldrin]

52 minutes ago, Dorientje Woller said:

*facepalm* You don't rezz nekid as newbie, the first time you log into SL. My base avatar looked like a bag of potatoes in a pink polkadot dress with a flexi skirt and something that you couldn't recognize as hair.

When I was new I found a quiet corner and clicked “remove all clothes” It was only after I was nude that i realized there wasnt a “put clothes back on” button 😖

inventory? whats that? 😂

[Grayson Blakewell]

5 minutes ago, Wincil said:

Let's not go off topic and keep the forums civil.(Ps: People tried to get me in trouble in the forums by falsely reporting me.)   

As I said, you cant trust SL residents, some do like to get hot under the collar and abuse power as a means as comeback, when they being shown a direction they like to dish out at will. Silly immaturity but it is what it is. Agreed though !! 

Edited May 7 by Grayson Blakewell

[Love Zhaoying]

18 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Don't worry.  They did mention age verification may be coming.  😁

Ironically, actual user age doesn't seem to be part of the current issues addressed in the TOS changes, although it comes up in the thread a lot. Most responses I see from familiar posters say, "tried it before, didn't work, can't work, won't work", etc.

Puttung aside the fact some jurisdictions require it, and other reasons to add age verification, I suspect adding age verification may have a positive impact in helping prevent some issues which have led to the TOS changes.

This is because in my opinion, requiring "any" real verification may cause potential bad actors to think twice.

I see as a good thing, almost anything that prevents the problems at the root of these TOS changes.

(I don't think people can use Elvis Presley's ID in today's world, due to more sophisticated systems.)

Whatever it takes, let's not have this same discussion about the same issue requiring more TOS changes.

Edited May 7 by Love Zhaoying

[Wincil]

1 minute ago, Grayson Blakewell said:

As I said, you cant trust SL residents, they do like to get hot under the collar and abuse power as a means as comeback. Silly immaturity but it is what it is. Agreed though !! 

I mean not all SL residents are like that.

[AnthonyJoanne]

7 minutes ago, Grayson Blakewell said:

But your money is !! 

Given that you somehow didn't manage to quote whoever you are responding to, I'll assume it was my post.

You stated that agreeing to the TOS when you initially created your account was done under duress.

I pointed out that there was no duress whatsoever ... you were entirely free to walk away.

You say your money is ... I assume you're saying that the money you have invested in SL is a 'right'.

Two points:

If you hadn't agreed to the TOS you wouldn't have any money invested in SL in the first place. So no duress.

I keep reminding people that ALL of this is transient. Your avatar. Your 'property'. Your inventory. There may be legal issues pertaining to cashing our your $L balance, but besides that it can ALL go away with no legal recourse whatsoever.

[Chery Amore]

34 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

We really don't want to go back to "Your World. Your Imagination." Perhaps people don't remember the heyday of that slogan, with all the skeevy "banks" and "stock markets" and rigged "casinos" that were the "imagination" of some exploiting a totally hands-off approach. Now, after many laws (many to do with laundering terrorist financing) it's a tighter ship.

So maybe they're now responding (again) to laws about depiction of children. Or maybe not, but its fine with me if they're making changes perhaps solely for business advantage, even if it's more window-dressing than substance.

I just wish the steps made practical sense and preferably didn't unnecessarily reduce the platform's value for a particular class of ToS-compliant customers.

(But admittedly, I don't understand most of the posts on the past page or so. Much abstract whining accompanied by vigorous verbal hand-waving but no concrete suggestions I can find.)

I think it's not just cut and dry they are doing it because of this or that.  All the reasons the changes are being made are valid.  Changing laws, and the spotlight on letting illegal activities fester  and general pubic image.. it's all relevant. By illegal activities I'm mainly talking about obscenity laws . But there is a reason they are going to look back into age verification as well. Because underage people can join and that could blow up on them. I use to be a .. "well their parents should watch what they do type?" and kind of still am to a certain extent.  But they don't in some cases and the Lab ends up guilty if problems arise because little Molly made and account and got mixed up in something illegal with pedo Dan.

I decided to go look at takes on what people think of sl on reddit who are outside of the community and we are not thought of well. I think most of us are well aware of it.  I saw so many comments about why not to go there surrounding this very topic. I wasn't surprised as I've seen it before. But these comments were recent...very recent. Whether true or not we are seen to be housing and facilitating pedo's here... personally to some extent I think it's true myself.

I have to take human trafficking and domestic violence classes every few years to keep my licensure.  I see more laws and awareness happening.  Yes this is a fantasy world but we can't house these fantasies anymore.. not even a little bit. The awareness of the problem is building. It's not going away and the people that run our platform aren't sticking their heads in the sand and hoping the problem goes away on it's own.  We have to clean house here. They are doing that.. even if it's just to cover their butt and I applaud them for it.

Yeah there's gonna be fallout.  I don't think they are going to be stupid enough to give in and backslide over the residents that want things to go back to normal because of loss of revenue... "freedom of expression" ... therapy for childhood abuse... or just fun and games that people seem to be waving around as a reason to maintain the status quo. 

 

 

[Grayson Blakewell]

3 minutes ago, AnthonyJoanne said:

Given that you somehow didn't manage to quote whoever you are responding to, I'll assume it was my post.

You stated that agreeing to the TOS when you initially created your account was done under duress.

I pointed out that there was no duress whatsoever ... you were entirely free to walk away.

You say your money is ... I assume you're saying that the money you have invested in SL is a 'right'.

Two points:

If you hadn't agreed to the TOS you wouldn't have any money invested in SL in the first place. So no duress.

I keep reminding people that ALL of this is transient. Your avatar. Your 'property'. Your inventory. There may be legal issues pertaining to cashing our your $L balance, but besides that it can ALL go away with no legal recourse whatsoever.

Again the digital world is changing, 10 years ago that would have been correct. Not now, if an item is taxable in its country, consumers have rights. Go look to the Office of Fair Trading standards on host countries, you will  understand a little more in how consumer rights are protected.  

Edited May 7 by Grayson Blakewell

[Theresa Tennyson]

8 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.

Theresa Tennyson smiles...

Of course they didn't.

[AnthonyJoanne]

1 minute ago, Grayson Blakewell said:

Again the digital world is changing, 10 years ago that would have been correct. Not now, if an item is taxable in its country, consumers have rights. Go look to the Office of Fair Trading standards on host countries, you will see understand a little more in how consumer rights are protected.  

Nope.

If a person, we'll call him George, decides to buy SL tomorrow and then George decides that it's not economically feasible to continue offering the service ... George will be well within his rights to shut it down.

There are cities in the US currently discovering that even if you pass laws, you can't make a business keep doing business when it's not profitable.

And NOTHING in the TOS that YOU agreed to says that LL (or anyone who buys LL) is legally obligated to keep the servers running.

 

[Zalificent Corvinus]

12 minutes ago, Grayson Blakewell said:

Nobody did that, you not reading, I am gay, I was expressing how others were stating that.

Really? You're the champon of LGBTQ's?

When you've made insulting remarks about "gimps" and women, and "freeloaders"?

 

On 5/5/2024 at 10:33 PM, Grayson Blakewell said:

dressed like they came from an all night gimp sex orgy

Yup that's a really LGBTQ friendly expression to use. Many of those "gimps" ARE LGBTQ.

 

2 hours ago, Grayson Blakewell said:

 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.

 

1 hour ago, Grayson Blakewell said:

 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), 

 

Oh you've made your "opinions" on "freeloading gimp karens" abundantly clear, and voided your membership of the LGBTQ defence league.

Unless you only defend the G's.

 

[Love Zhaoying]

5 hours ago, Daniel Regenbogen said:

And a little reminder: one person here in this forum, who attacks, insults and sprews hatred against kid avatars constantly and repeatedly said it herself about her community: we are perverts and want to live out our perversion without any kid avatars nearby.

Thank you for not "naming names", that would be against the Forum Community Guidelines.  While this could have been about any number of Forum regulars, I personally feel your comments are really extreme in the current environment of this nice thread.

Boy, I hope we can stay on topic. I like the TOS changes because, they give me hope!

[Grayson Blakewell]

8 minutes ago, AnthonyJoanne said:

Nope.

If a person, we'll call him George, decides to buy SL tomorrow and then George decides that it's not economically feasible to continue offering the service ... George will be well within his rights to shut it down.

There are cities in the US currently discovering that even if you pass laws, you can't make a business keep doing business when it's not profitable.

And NOTHING in the TOS that YOU agreed to says that LL (or anyone who buys LL) is legally obligated to keep the servers running.

 

Yes they are at rights but NOT if the product has been changed, to a degree that creates a situation that was of no direct fault of theirs, that you cannot repair within your powers, that not only treats that customer differently, but also is affecting them to a degree where they have inequality of the service they bought into that does not ALIGN with the majority. . Just because a company states something, does not mean it is LEGAL. That is your decision to take that on and accept it, if you see it as such. The TOS is based on goodwill. 

Edited May 7 by Grayson Blakewell

[Grayson Blakewell]

4 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

Really? You're the champon of LGBTQ's?

When you've made insulting remarks about "gimps" and women, and "freeloaders"?

 

Yup that's a really LGBTQ friendly expression to use. Many of those "gimps" ARE LGBTQ.

 

 

 

Oh you've made your "opinions" on "freeloading gimp karens" abundantly clear, and voided your membership of the LGBTQ defence league.

Unless you only defend the G's.

 

Keep projecting with the BIG fonts, you showing yourself up for what you are . The rest is spouting anger and nonsense, I don't reply to that form of discourse. Sorry ? Please read English  

[brodiac90]

Discussing why LL are making the changes is pretty much pointless. It goes back to sim owners being able to ban who they want for whatever reason, but on a larger scale. LL can change the TOS at any point for any reason and they did. They might even do more.... 

The changes, though, are broadly a good thing. Protecting adult avatars on Adult land is a good thing. 

Similarly, LL added a load of protections to child avatars so it's even easier to AR those that try to be involved in things they shouldn't be, whether that be adult avatars, child avatars or both. 

Has there been any update on what the modesty layers will need to be? 

[Love Zhaoying]

5 minutes ago, brodiac90 said:

Discussing why LL are making the changes is pretty much pointless.

I agree. Except the "pointing fingers" part, it only gives people something to rant and vent about. The changes ARE happening.  

Although, now that I say that..I guess some people may be "confused" about why the changes are happening..? They've got some reading up to do.

6 minutes ago, brodiac90 said:

The changes, though, are broadly a good thing. Protecting adult avatars on Adult land is a good thing.

+1

6 minutes ago, brodiac90 said:

Similarly, LL added a load of protections to child avatars so it's even easier to AR those that try to be involved in things they shouldn't be, whether that be adult avatars, child avatars or both. 

Plus, the changes apparently protect the "rights" of innocent child avatars!

 

[Grayson Blakewell]

9 minutes ago, brodiac90 said:

Discussing why LL are making the changes is pretty much pointless. It goes back to sim owners being able to ban who they want for whatever reason, but on a larger scale. LL can change the TOS at any point for any reason and they did. They might even do more.... 

The changes, though, are broadly a good thing. Protecting adult avatars on Adult land is a good thing. 

Similarly, LL added a load of protections to child avatars so it's even easier to AR those that try to be involved in things they shouldn't be, whether that be adult avatars, child avatars or both. 

Has there been any update on what the modesty layers will need to be? 

Oh yes I agree, some of the changes are good. I do not agree that people need skins that have different shading, alphas and baked on underwear is respectable enough. The motto of SL is people can be what they wish to be, to enjoy the world in a safe and respectful manner (although the respect of some people really needs addressed, no names mentioned here) My nieces and nephews don't have crayon or marker pen on their middle , unless they need a bath.  People should be allowed to be what they are intended to be, not what the stupid and selfish portray their avatars to be or do. better policing, better community to Linden staff community connections and responsibility helps a long way to solve this problem. Not decisions like this, because this could backfire on them in many ways, if people are rightfully aggrieved which will end up with more people being put out.

Compassion and Respect for people goes a long way. LL has lost that through sex and vice, it certainly was not like this in the past. 

In the end... people are not stereotypes and are individuals, and it is offensive to consider anyone a stereotype (even though some clearly are but you know how to put these people in place with logic, idiots LOL) Anyways...

Edited May 7 by Grayson Blakewell

[Chery Amore]

8 hours ago, Denim Robonaught said:

All things can be seen from a wrong position doesn't mean that they are.

Giving my kid a bad. Running after them because they don't want to get dressed. Having to take off your shirt because one of them just dropped a bowl of oatmeal on it. Going skinny dipping while one of your kids is in the cabin of your sailboat. and no, they never had any bits. I think we all know where that line is you don't cross, or cross willingly.

This was one of the first comments that I woke up to and read. I see the confused reactions. Do you know or do get why they are reacting that way?  Don't you see that some of these roleplay ... or  "fun and games" scenarios come off as the start of a bad (and illegal) porno?  Or are you just going to cast a broad stroke and say we are all just dirty minded?

Yes, I believe you know what lines not to cross. But that you even use that sentence at the end says something. You need to re-evaluate how you roleplay or even joke around on the platform.

[brodiac90]

4 minutes ago, Chery Amore said:

This was one of the first comments that I woke up to and read. I see the confused reactions. Do you know or do get why they are reacting that way?  Don't you see that some of these roleplay ... or  "fun and games" scenarios come off as the start of a bad (and illegal) porno?  Or are you just going to cast a broad stroke and say we are all just dirty minded?

Yes, I believe you know what lines not to cross. But that you even use that sentence at the end says something. You need to re-evaluate how you roleplay or even joke around on the platform.

I play a child avatar and I agree. There are lots of perfectly legal things parents and kids do together in RL but which wouldn't be appropriate for SL. 

My SL mom would just be like - gives you bath and then gets you ready for bed. That whole part is skipped and then it's tuck in time in my kid bed which only has kid friendly animations. It isn't a PG bed, it's a bed specifically designed for kid avatars. PG furniture is often just adult furniture with the explicit animations removed. 

 

[Love Zhaoying]

35 minutes ago, AnthonyJoanne said:

48 minutes ago, Grayson Blakewell said:

But your money is !! 

Given that you somehow didn't manage to quote whoever you are responding to, I'll assume it was my post.

I figured they meant, 'My money is gay'?

Money won't fix the problems discussed here, although if they did, I'd post a meme with Fry from "Futurama" tossing cash while saying, "Take my money!"

(See how hard that was instead of just posting the meme? Maybe it's OK to post memes if they are on-topic?)

 

[Chery Amore]

Just now, brodiac90 said:

I play a child avatar and I agree. There are lots of perfectly legal things parents and kids do together in RL but which wouldn't be appropriate for SL. 

My SL mom would just be like - gives you bath and then gets you ready for bed. That whole part is skipped and then it's tuck in time in my kid bed which only has kid friendly animations. It isn't a PG bed, it's a bed specifically designed for kid avatars. PG furniture is often just adult furniture with the explicit animations removed. 

 

Yeah you can't go there right? I believe you and really do feel for what you are going through.

[Katherine Heartsong]

56 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Don't worry.  They did mention age verification may be coming.  😁

I'm already age verified.

I'm old enough to have actually celebrated (as a kid) the last Stanley Cup win by the Maple Leafs.

[Qie Niangao]

17 minutes ago, Chery Amore said:

But there is a reason they are going to look back into age verification as well. Because underage people can join and that could blow up on them.

If they do go back to age verification, there are three things to consider:

1. It needs to work vastly better than it did the last time. It was just laughable before, but it's not impossible that this business has improved enough to at least not be an advertisement for failure that ends up making LL look worse than if they'd done nothing.
2. At the same time, it probably needs to be less invasive than it was before. That seems pretty hard to do when it must also be more accurate, but I suspect the average user is (even) more protective of personal data than before. Even if it's opt-in (as I assume it will be) just for access to A-rated content, there's likely to be privacy-related blow-back.
3. They dare not get out ahead of the industry with this, for legal reasons. Even if the kiddies are less protected, the company is much safer if it's doing whatever everybody else is doing.

So it's tricky. Maybe not insurmountable this time, but kind of a minefield.

27 minutes ago, Chery Amore said:

We have to clean house here. They are doing that.. even if it's just to cover their butt and I applaud them for it.

Agreed. And as you say, "it's not just cut and dry they are doing it because of this or that." Some of the changes may be to correct actual problems found by those external investigators, and others may be to adopt recommended processes to limit risk or to anticipate pending legislation, and others to address consultant assessment of public perception—which I  personally suspect may motivate most of it, and very possibly the most important to the business.

[Arielle Popstar]

45 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

A very, very small pile.

It is bigger then you let on since it winds up including everyone from age 0-18 and even beyond because an ***** AR can be launched on even those only suspected of being underage. It's been seen by some avatar photos how they can be rated as anywhere between 15-25. So from that this potentially can affect anyone displaying as as anywhere from 0-25 now. So your very, very small pile is really about half the freaking grid, especially those representing as predominantly female.

As now multiple sources other then myself have pointed out, Governance has been heavy handed in meting out bans that don't follow their own policies in how it is supposed to be handled, so at this point to my mind, the Governance department has much to answer for and some updated FAQ's are not really going to cut it to assure residents that they will henceforth. 

[Chery Amore]

I hope if we age verified in the past they will still have a record of it somehow.  Already went through that!

[InnerCity Elf]

1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Ironically, actual user age doesn't seem to be part of the current issues addressed in the TOS changes, although it comes up in the thread a lot. Most responses I see from familiar posters say, "tried it before, didn't work, can't work, won't work", etc.

Puttung aside the fact some jurisdictions require it, and other reasons to add age verification, I suspect adding age verification may have a positive impact in helping prevent some issues which have led to the TOS changes.

This is because in my opinion, requiring "any" real verification may cause potential bad actors to think twice.

I see as a good thing, almost anything that prevents the problems at the root of these TOS changes.

(I don't think people can use Elvis Presley's ID in today's world, due to more sophisticated systems.)

Whatever it takes, let's not have this same discussion about the same issue requiring more TOS changes.

User age verification will be interesting. While I agree that any kind of actual verification will make many if not all potential bad actors think twice, I'm sure it will also make a lot of people who are even boringly harmless, think twice. I don't have any issue accepting the revised ToS, but I do have second thoughts about verification beyond what's already in place through PIoF.

Many people who don't earn but just spend money in SL may decide to spend it elsewhere if they'll be required to, for example, have photos of their IDs front and back, which even includes the exact address for some of us, float around in the web. I already don't like that where I can't help it (work related, or officially required), but I know this will make me think twice or more.

That doesn't mean I can't see why it may be unavoidable, and I'd even concur that it would be a good thing if it actually would keep harm away from actual children, it would be just one more thing in a long line of everyone being "punished" because of some bad actors things, and we're so used to that, offline or online, that many probably won't bat an eye and just comply, but I won't be the only one who'll think twice, apart from the potential bad players.

In fact, I was about to get some mainland again, when the 🐘 happened, but put that idea on the shelf to see what would happen.

Anyway, I do have hopes, and hope that both new ToS and coming verification won't turn away too many "good" players.

Edited May 7 by InnerCity Elf
Corrected autocorrect.