Ineffable Mote Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 (edited) I'd suggest renaming the modesty layer to enforcement layer, and point out that any functional removal of it will(or even just may) tend to show a customer's intent. though there's probably nothing that'll deter all the giggletypes from going "rules are stupid, does not apply to me" Edited May 7 by Ineffable Mote 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chery Amore Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 30 minutes 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. *mumbles, mumbles* I kind of liked this idea but it was shot down by logic... bleh. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leslie Trihey Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 Don't mind me, just making sure them undies are TIG (Tungsten Inert Gas welding) welded on. Go about your day citizen. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 (edited) Yeah well, better off not saying what I said. Edited May 7 by Love Zhaoying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stellaa Starlight Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 4 1 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alwin Alcott Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 4 minutes ago, Silverdown Seetan said: 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. It is for sure a stupid and nothing contributing solution for something that isn't a problem. But what i said to brodiac already, the Moderate region situation is a lot more important in my opinion, because that is already in effect, and some were already unjusitfied banned from places. Adult is already a no go also. That patch will be a lot more relevent as soon we know how they present the actual image, and still 7 weeks before it's mandatory. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiritSparrow Skydancer Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 Just now, Chery Amore said: *mumbles, mumbles* I kind of liked this idea but it was shot down by logic... bleh. Most people put that into their profile. Role playing it there. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 1 minute ago, Chery Amore said: 33 minutes 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. *mumbles, mumbles* I kind of liked this idea but it was shot down by logic... bleh. This is why we throw caution to the wind and put ideas out there. You never know what may stick, or generate actual, non-whining / non-cursing discussion! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissSweetViolet Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 2 minutes ago, Alwin Alcott said: 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. Oddly enough I feel like the Moderate region isn't an issue. Most activities can happen behind closed doors, which should be fine in most situations [I think it would be rude to randomly go to someone's private parcel regardless of the avatar worn]. As for public nudity, it was stated that someone just walking by a child nude would not be an issue, so anyone filing an AR on that would be doing so falsely. Plus the rule on the Moderate region already states that going pantless may be inappropriate, if a child avatar was present and someone decided to get naked, that would seem to fall into something that could be deemed inappropriate. I actually think the Moderate region is fine as is. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qie Niangao Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 23 minutes ago, Vivienne Schell said: 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 Except that's exactly as I said. Child avatars are prohibited from being fully nude, and content creators are required to bake the magic underwear into their skin and body products. It specifically does not say the child avatars are required to actually wear those magic underwear products, as long as they aren't fully nude. It would have been easy to say it, if that's what they really meant. I bet we do not see that in the final version (because it's technically nonsense). 2 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiritSparrow Skydancer Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 2 minutes ago, Leslie Trihey said: Don't mind me, just making sure them undies are TIG (Tungsten Inert Gas welding) welded on. Go about your day citizen. That reminds me of when thong/gstring bikini was banned at our beaches here… the police had rulers…. And were arrested! Sorry way off topic post… I’ll go back outside and do my chores.. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silverdown Seetan Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 5 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said: One vote for "Stupid solution". Check! Ok, so let see hypothecially, what do you think about a modesty later applied server side to all avatar outside a adult region? All the female avatars with there upper body popping out of there shirts instantly had a later applied on General and Mature regions when they just set up there avatar? or around the lower half looking like you just had a bad bikini wax? or male avatars with open shirts looking like that just had a blackouted tattoo? I think that a brillaint solution! No, well im pretty sure that how child avatars are feeling right now. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brodiac90 Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Alwin Alcott said: It is for sure a stupid and nothing contributing solution for something that isn't a problem. But what i said to brodiac already, the Moderate region situation is a lot more important in my opinion, because that is already in effect, and some were already unjusitfied banned from places. Adult is already a no go also. That patch will be a lot more relevent as soon we know how they present the actual image, and still 7 weeks before it's mandatory. I agree, but I'm not sure it matters? The situation is always going to be that child avatars should do everything reasonably possible to protect themselves, whether that be removing themselves from nude situations (even if someone suddenly appears) or by AR'ing offenders / blocking etc. Even if LL stated public nudity on M land wasn't allowed, I doubt it would change the requirement for child avatars to leave etc. Clarity on how Governance will react seems to be more important. Edited May 7 by brodiac90 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brodiac90 Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 3 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said: Except that's exactly as I said. Child avatars are prohibited from being fully nude, and content creators are required to bake the magic underwear into their skin and body products. It specifically does not say the child avatars are required to actually wear those magic underwear products, as long as they aren't fully nude. It would have been easy to say it, if that's what they really meant. I bet we do not see that in the final version (because it's technically nonsense). It actually does if you read the FAQ. From June 30th all child avatars are required to use one of the updated bodies/ skins. Not doing so is a direct violation of TOS. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sammy Huntsman Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 2 minutes ago, Silverdown Seetan said: Ok, so let see hypothecially, what do you think about a modesty later applied server side to all avatar outside a adult region? All the female avatars with there upper body popping out of there shirts instantly had a later applied on General and Mature regions when they just set up there avatar? or around the lower half looking like you just had a bad bikini wax? or male avatars with open shirts looking like that just had a blackouted tattoo? I think that a brillaint solution! No, well im pretty sure that how child avatars are feeling right now. Why didn't creators make underwear for them in the first place? O don't get it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Silverdown Seetan said: Ok, so let see hypothecially, what do you think about a modesty later applied server side to all avatar outside a adult region? All the female avatars with there upper body popping out of there shirts instantly had a later applied on General and Mature regions when they just set up there avatar? or around the lower half looking like you just had a bad bikini wax? or male avatars with open shirts looking like that just had a blackouted tattoo? I think that a brillaint solution! No, well im pretty sure that how child avatars are feeling right now. * Edited * I don't comprehend, except your last sentence. Sorry! Edited May 7 by Love Zhaoying 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brodiac90 Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 1 minute ago, Sammy Huntsman said: Why didn't creators make underwear for them in the first place? O don't get it. They did, BOM undies exist. LL want ones that cannot be removed - I'm not sure this is possible. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErwinVonVlotho Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 3 minutes ago, Silverdown Seetan said: 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. LL don't care what fantasies people have. They honestly don't give the tiniest fraction of a microdamn. Their corporate lawyers are not worried about people having fantasies. What they're worried about is some newspaper getting its hands on images of naked children made on SL, and the solution is making it as difficult as possible to make a child avatar look naked. Just telling people not to do it isn't enough, so the idea of saying "Child avis must wear clothes" and leaving it at that is a complete non-starter. It simply isn't going to happen, no matter how many people plead for it. LL need to make sure that you can't have a naked child avi without knowingly going through a non-trivial and explicitly forbidden process that LL has actively made difficult - because as soon as someone starts that process they are the bad guy and LL is a victim, not an enabler. Yes, there will be ways to defeat the modesty layer, but anyone who does so will automatically and deliberately be violating TOS - and, if a pic should surface somewhere, LL can hold their hands up and say "Well, we tried to stop them doing that." 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alwin Alcott Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said: Why didn't creators make underwear for them in the first place? O don't get it. because it was asked by the kids community to have bare skins Edited May 7 by Alwin Alcott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sammy Huntsman Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 Just now, brodiac90 said: They did, BOM undies exist. LL want ones that cannot be removed - I'm not sure this is possible. It is possible, creators have to bake a modesty layer in the skin, that doesn't match the skin tone. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katherine Heartsong Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 (edited) 1 hour 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. This is where I'm confused, the whole "wearing". I know what the LL new guidelines say, but isn't this simply solved by child avatar makers simply having a range of default avatar "skins" in a HUD that a user can choose from (to match the chosen head skin etc) that have the modesty patches applied (whatever the guidelines on size coverage etc turn out to be), and not having the avatar able to be BoM or wear any other skin in any way? How could a user possibly then running one of these avatars even wear a skin that lacked a modesty thing? I'm expecting child avatars to not be modifiable at the base skin "layer" at all beyond what the maker themselves allow. Something like Maitreya's base skin panel, no BoM, and that's your only available choices. (Obviously these would include the modesty panels.) Edited May 7 by Katherine Heartsong 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silverdown Seetan Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 3 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said: Why didn't creators make underwear for them in the first place? O don't get it. They actually do.. along with BOM solutions as well. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissSweetViolet Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 1 minute ago, Sammy Huntsman said: Why didn't creators make underwear for them in the first place? O don't get it. Toddleedoo does, not sure about other creators, they weren't baked into the skin, but every TD avatar has access to underwear from the hud, if you click the extras button, you'll get various folders including BoM underwear, and I even think the applier option might still be there for any avatar that still wanted to use them. Many shops sell them as well. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sammy Huntsman Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 I do gotta ask. Why is it such a bad thing for Child avatars to have to make sacrifices? Everyone has to make sacrifices, and do things they don't like. It's part of life. 2 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissSweetViolet Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 3 minutes ago, Alwin Alcott said: because it was asked by the kids community to have bare skins No one I know ever asked for this, but since no child has any genitals ether 3d or painted by default, it wasn't even realized that was a needed option till now since most child avatars already use underwear. It was assumed just putting those on should be sufficient. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts