So what changed in the Terms of Service?

[Blush Bravin]

10 minutes ago, Vivienne Schell said:

Not with baked on skin undies. OK? These cannot be removed like some BOM layer.

All you have to do is double click on another skin in your inventory to REMOVE that skin. So in essence it's still removeable. 

[MissSweetViolet]

11 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Idea:  A standardized (optional) "Profile entry" (field/slot) to use for those who are intending to present as a certain age, so that there is some consistency.

"I SAY that I am 8 years old, and my PROFILE says I am 8 years old." 

That way, you can spot a "young person" just by reading their profile. You don't have to guess, or ask and argue with them about how young they look.

The only downside I see (unless this is abused somehow), is people who switch back and forth between "adult" and "child" would be inconvenienced.  Do / will people really switch like that, except when they "have to" for shopping, etc.?

 

I mean I switch several times a day between various avatars depending on where I'm going and what I'll be doing, etc. 

Edited May 7 by MissSweetViolet
Spelling corrections.

[Chery Amore]

2 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Thank you for the initial comment. Just to clarify, I've never AR'ed anyone inworld and don't intend to start, Not my business. I may be be quite immersed in my RP when I play it but that doesn't extend to becoming confused. Like you said, it is not my first rodeo. I RP'ed the bimbo for quite a while but I wasn't very good at it but in some ways I don't see the reaction of the other as being that different to me being a teen. There were a lot of similarities to how I was treated. In some ways it is a natural extension except more of an age regression and no, I won't regress any further as I tried the prepubescent avatar but found through an experience I've already related, to be not so enjoyable and too vulnerable to bad actors. Additionally, relying on the community to police the grid is bound to be problematic as we have thousands of different interpretations of what may or may not constitute a young avatar. It could be a potential madhouse here should they all start filing AR's against what a lot deem to be child avatars. I am just happy to have my own grid to stay at for the next while and I would suggest those who are very invested in the avatar, to do the same.

SL does seem to be changing and personally I don't feel it is for the better. This focus on AR'ing anyone who is not toeing their own interpretation of the ToS line is something fraught with an anti community spirit that will be too prone to destroying SL from within. Hopefully Governance sorts itself out and actually follows its own guidelines as that might allay some of the potential problems inherent in the new policies but that remains to be seen.

I apologize for what I got wrong here about all of it. I hate to say it but you might be safer there for awhile. I've never been and don't intend on going and I don't in anyway mean to imply that you are ignorant. 

The changes that I was talking about aren't about focusing on AR's but really I think it's a good tool when the situation is clear...  people keep saying they aren't addressing the real issue. How else are they going to get to the problem unless they are told? I'd rather do that and let the people in charge figure out how to handle it. That by no mean's indicates I'm AR happy btw.

 

[brodiac90]

13 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Idea:  A standardized (optional) "Profile entry" (field/slot) to use for those who are intending to present as a certain age, so that there is some consistency.

"I SAY that I am 8 years old, and my PROFILE says I am 8 years old." 

That way, you can spot a "young person" just by reading their profile. You don't have to guess, or ask and argue with them about how young they look.

The only downside I see (unless this is abused somehow), is people who switch back and forth between "adult" and "child" would be inconvenienced.  Do / will people really switch like that, except when they "have to" for shopping, etc.?

 

Some do, but most people who play kid avatars in my experience play them exlusively. IMO, mixing adult and child content on the same account especially things people can see (profiles / picks / groups) etc looks dodgy. 

[Qie Niangao]

1 hour ago, Rowan Amore said:

I mentioned it earlier and @Qie Niangaosaid that it wasn't there in the SL viewer.  This is what appears in Firestorm when showing map coordinates...it shows Moderate.   If I right click the SLurl that pops up in local and Show on Map.  I have no idea how it works in the SL viewer...

The Linden viewer lacks the maturity designation on region map tiles, but neither viewer (nor any others AFAIK) have the suggestion to extend that to text rendering of the SLURLs themselves:

1 hour ago, Honey Puddles said:

Just gonna drop this here: Second Life Feedback: Append [G][M][A] Maturity Rating indicators to slurls rendered in IMs, Chat, Dialogs, Group Notices, etc.

(which I think deserves extra up-votes for being cool, clever, and germane to this thread's topic, so I hyped it again. 😛 )

[Vivienne Schell]

1 minute ago, MissSweetViolet said:

As stated many times before, a skin is easy to replace with another skin, which end in the same result, the violating avatar being AR'd for violating the rules. 

If one uses a skin without modesty panels it´s a violation of the ToS. BOM would open a can of worms, because it cannot be standardized. What if some guys use 95 percent transparent panties? See, they want to make it as hard as possible for people to go completely nude or "cute" or "sexy" while running a child avi.

[Love Zhaoying]

Just now, brodiac90 said:

Some do, but most people who play kid avatars in my experience play them exlusively. IMO, mixing adult and child content on the same account especially things people can see (profiles / picks / groups) etc looks dodgy. 

Thanks. How do you like the general idea of a place to put your "SL Avatar Age"? It would circumvent a lot of argument earlier in this thread.

[Qie Niangao]

1 minute ago, Vivienne Schell said:

If one uses a skin without modesty panels it´s a violation of the ToS. BOM would open a can of worms, because it cannot be standardized. What if some guys use 95 percent transparent panties? See, they want to make it as hard as possible for people to go completely nude or "cute" or "sexy" while running a child avi.

Not technically. As written, the modesty panels are a requirement for content creators. There's only the tacit implication that child avatars are expected to wear them at some point as a way of complying with the "total nudity" prohibition.

[Silverdown Seetan]

So, hypothetically all child avatars have modesty layer and never go to Adult regions... what then? Werdo are still going to be around,  the only thing that changes kids will now have a layer poking out of their skin looking like a  defective dollar store barbie doll because people can't keep their sick fantasies to themselves. What really had changed? All the weird sickos will just stop going to adult places for child avatars and we will once again eventually have another round of this new Child avatar TOS changes to restrict from Moderate regions and all kids must wear a  wet suit.  Then  no child avatars will be allowed,  and it returns to an 18+ only platform and Second Life becomes fully adult rated.

[brodiac90]

Just now, Love Zhaoying said:

Thanks. How do you like the general idea of a place to put your "SL Avatar Age"? It would circumvent a lot of argument earlier in this thread.

Honestly, I admire attempts to come up with new ideas, so I applaud your creativity, but in this instance I think it would be a bad idea. You'll just get borederline cases insisting they're adults and 18 because it clearly states so in this new field, despite the fact they look 16. You have to take everything into account - looks, height, profile picture, clothing style, groups, picks, how they talk and act. 

[Daniel Regenbogen]

1 minute ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Thanks. How do you like the general idea of a place to put your "SL Avatar Age"? It would circumvent a lot of argument earlier in this thread.

In my eyes this contradicts the official recommendation to switch to an adult avatar when you need or want to visit an adult rated region. It would work for those who solely stay within their community places - but those are also the ones who would need it the least.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

1 hour ago, ErwinVonVlotho said:

The problem I have with this comment is that "the child then carried on looking for love in all the wrong places"  means exactly the same as "the adult pretending to be a child then looked for more a**play opportunities".

You've mentioned this several times now. You're not doing anything to reduce the perception that some users of child avatars are very much part of the problem.

 

Why try and minimize this? its true, people need to be aware of it, its not all innocent adults rping children that are drawn into this, its predatory adults playing children that are drawing innocent adults playing adults into their fantasies.

Thats why i said hundreds of posts ago, never accept a hug or a cuddle from a child

[Vivienne Schell]

10 minutes ago, Blush Bravin said:

All you have to do is double click on another skin in your inventory to REMOVE that skin. So in essence it's still removeable. 

Yes, but if one exchanges a skin with modesty panels for one without  it while running a child avi is a violation of the ToS.

[MissSweetViolet]

1 minute ago, Vivienne Schell said:

If one uses a skin without modesty panels it´s a violation of the ToS. BOM would open a can of worms, because it cannot be standardized. What if some guys use 95 percent transparent panties? See, they want to make it as hard as possible for people to go completely nude or "cute" or "sexy" while running a child avi.

I have no issue with it being on a skin, that seems to me like the most ideal approach between welded on and simple BoM, but I have seen many question both in and outside of SL what the mean when they say baked on, since in the past they have used the term for BoM. 

I would argue that don't be nude is clear enough of a standard though, and if transparent panties end up being an issue [never has in any of the communities I've been in, their always non transparent when I see BoM undergarments in shops, perhaps the age skirters might have more inclination to attempt that]. That would be easy enough to clear up in the rules.

[Vivienne Schell]

6 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

Not technically. As written, the modesty panels are a requirement for content creators. There's only the tacit implication that child avatars are expected to wear them at some point as a way of complying with the "total nudity" prohibition.

No.

Residents presenting as Child Avatars shall be prohibited from the following:

• 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

[Blush Bravin]

8 minutes ago, Vivienne Schell said:

Yes, but if one exchanges a skin with modesty panels for one without  it while running a child avi is a violation of the ToS.

Which could also be said for anyone removing a BOM based modesty panel!

[Rowan Amore]

5 minutes ago, MissSweetViolet said:

I have no issue with it being on a skin, that seems to me like the most ideal approach between welded on and simple BoM, but I have seen many question both in and outside of SL what the mean when they say baked on, since in the past they have used the term for BoM. 

I would argue that don't be nude is clear enough of a standard though, and if transparent panties end up being an issue [never has in any of the communities I've been in, their always non transparent when I see BoM undergarments in shops, perhaps the age skirters might have more inclination to attempt that]. That would be easy enough to clear up in the rules.

I think what confuses some people is the BoM LAYER skin.   Instead, it should be called the system skin and how it has always appeared in inventory.  It's an item that must always be worn along with shape, eyes and browbase.  Those items cannot be REMOVED but can be replaced.  Of course, even with that having a modesty layer, one could still wear another skin over it using the BoM tattoo layer.

Unless LL specifically says child-presenting avatars MUST use a specific body that IS NOT BOM compatible, there will always be ways to get past it.  

I wear the velour system skin.  I can easily cover that with another skin using the tattoo.  Anyone can and that's probably what most people do.  

My opinion is that modesty layer, however implemented, is useless.

[Alwin Alcott]

2 hours ago, brodiac90 said:

Keeping things on topic - what do people think the modesty layers should be?

the topic is the TOS and it's changes.

Long ago in this thread Tommy already said the answer on your burning question will come soon in the QA section.

Keeping speculating is pretty useless as we know nóthing except they want such thing.

[brodiac90]

5 minutes ago, Alwin Alcott said:

the topic is the TOS and it's changes.

Long ago in this thread Tommy already said the answer on your burning question will come soon in the QA section.

Keeping speculating is pretty useless as we know nóthing except they want such thing.

The fact that LL will be releasing guidance soon is the very reason I said we should discuss it, that way we can bring up things that LL may not have considered. A few of us were discussing what we think the layers should look like. Consensus is important in society and democracy in general. I'm sure LL want the transition to be as smooth as possible and we can help by discussing it. This thread is essentially a free focus group. 

Edited May 7 by brodiac90

[Love Zhaoying]

21 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

Not technically. As written, the modesty panels are a requirement for content creators. There's only the tacit implication that child avatars are expected to wear them at some point as a way of complying with the "total nudity" prohibition.

I like your interpretation!

It implies:

- If the avatar is "covered", then that's fine.

- If the avatar is "not covered", they need to have the modesty layer.

Nobody expects the "modesty layer" to show all the time! That would be like how Superman wears his underwear on the outside.  What a freak, eh?

 

[Silverdown Seetan]

2 minutes ago, Alwin Alcott said:

the topic is the TOS and it's changes.

Long ago in this thread Tommy already said the answer on your burning question will come soon in the QA section.

Keeping speculating is pretty useless as we know nóthing except they want such thing.

Modesty layer is a stupid solution, just have a rule on the clothing and make sure they have adequate coverage over the areas they want the modesty later to cover. 90% of child avatar clothing already does this. There is some clothing I do agree are questionable and I never do buy that should be reported if seen. The layer is not going to stop sickos with fantasies like they assume it will.

[Love Zhaoying]

Just now, Silverdown Seetan said:

Modesty layer is a stupid solution

One vote for "Stupid solution". Check!

[brodiac90]

1 minute ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I like your interpretation!

It implies:

- If the avatar is "covered", then that's fine.

- If the avatar is "not covered", they need to have the modesty layer.

Nobody expects the "modesty layer" to show all the time! That would be like how Superman wears his underwear on the outside.  What a freak, eh?

 

I know it is semantics but I would re-phrse it to this. 

- The child avatar always need to be wearing their modesty layer

-If they aren't wearing any other clothes then the modesty layer is visible and they're not nude. 

If they are wearing clothing over the modesty layer, then the modesty layer is not visible but is still there, and yes, they are obviously not nude if they're fully clothed. 

[Alwin Alcott]

3 minutes ago, brodiac90 said:

The fact that LL will be releasing guidance soon is the very reason I said we should discuss it, that way we can bring up things that LL may not have considered. A few of us were discussing what we think the layers should look like. Consensus is important in society and democracy in general. I'm sure LL want the transition to be as smooth as possible and we can help by discussing it. This thread is essentially a free focus group. 

if they suit you up like a astronaut or porcelin doll with only head  arms and legs all your posts will be wasted energy .. there's still 7 weeks to discuss after the release of the preview.
The Moderate region problem is in my opinion a lot bigger.

[SpiritSparrow Skydancer]

I think LL will see how passionate we are about this.. and you can all piss and moan all you want about it.. if you are here now or playing in world.. you have all agreed to the new TOS. 
 

now I believe that they have taken the coherent approach to mind and by their own hand told us they are going to investigate it more. 
 

let’s smoke the peace pipe shall we and do what only we can do… wait and see. 
 

 

Edited May 7 by SpiritSparrow Skydancer
Temper tantrum never got anyone anything but put in time out! Or in my day a whooping