Love Zhaoying Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 5 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said: There is nothing in the rules that specifically says child avatars must wear modesty panels. They just can't be naked. Creators of child specific bodies and skin must include those modesty panels. Even in the FAQs, it's kind of ambiguous Q: I already have a child avatar that does not have a built in modesty layer. Can I still use that since I purchased it already? A: No. Going forward, child avatars will be prohibited from being fully nude. Why did they not just answer...No, going forward, child avatars must have a modesty panel. One of those things that they'll need to clarify since THE major issue for most. ETA..from the actual policy page and what child avatars are prohibited from doing... 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. Thanks for quoting this again, people keep conflating the new modesty panel requirement and the "must not be nude" requirement to mean, "must always wear modesty panels". I suspect the truth of the "modesty panel" requirement will be something simple like, "creators are required to supply modesty panels as an OPTION so that avatars will always have a way to not be naked". In other words, "free underwear" that you don't have to wear, but owning it means you don't have any excuse to be naked. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Sharkfin Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 Just now, Codex Alpha said: Im sorry this is so confusing for people. I believe what you are saying is an exception to the rule, and arguing it. But in general everyone knows what sexualization means, and if they don't they need to look it up, sorry. For some to gaslight me and others on these words and others is really mind-snapping, and perhaps that is part of their game. It's not gaslighting to say that the term is too broad to be used in a meaningful way as part of the TOS. Nobody is trying to twist the meaning of the word to skirt any rules here, we're just saying that the TOS needs to be more specific so that people know what's expected of them. It works both ways, the more definitive the wording of the TOS is the harder it is for people to claim they just "misunderstood". 5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vivienne Schell Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 1 minute ago, Madi Melodious said: Still won't change a thing, other than deprive them of a source of revenue. The bad guys will still do the exact same thing but now they will just stick to private sims. So, unless the lab wants to stick a linden in every sim on the grid 24/7, my point still stands. Gee, Madsi, you still do not get or do not want to get the reason for all this. I really am tired of explaining that to you all over again. Maybe one explaination: Private Sims with Ban lines cannot be visited by nosey people who take screenshots and take logs and recordings. Public places are different. OK? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 1 minute ago, Love Zhaoying said: Thanks for quoting this again, people keep conflating the new modesty panel requirement and the "must not be nude" requirement to mean, "must always wear modesty panels". I suspect the truth of the "modesty panel" requirement will be something simple like, "creators are required to supply modesty panels as an OPTION so that avatars will always have a way to not be naked". In other words, "free underwear" that you don't have to wear, but owning it means you don't have any excuse to be naked. No where does it say the child avatar MUST wear them. If I missed that, someone show.me. Even when asked in the FAQ, the reply was the same. They did not say they must wear anything only that they couldn't be naked. An oversight? Perhaps but wording is important. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codex Alpha Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 3 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said: Thanks for quoting this again, people keep conflating the new modesty panel requirement and the "must not be nude" requirement to mean, "must always wear modesty panels". I suspect the truth of the "modesty panel" requirement will be something simple like, "creators are required to supply modesty panels as an OPTION so that avatars will always have a way to not be naked". In other words, "free underwear" that you don't have to wear, but owning it means you don't have any excuse to be naked. Residents presenting as Child Avatars shall be prohibited from the following: 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. https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Clarification_of_policy_disallowing_ageplay Please stop and read the F'ing TOS and related pages 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 1 minute ago, Rowan Amore said: No where does it say the child avatar MUST wear them. If I missed that, someone show.me. Even when asked in the FAQ, the reply was the same. They did not say they must wear anything only that they couldn't be naked. An oversight? Perhaps but wording is important. Yup, a tiny clarification would help SO much. People wouldn't need to fear whether their bodies / skins get updated, etc. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 Just now, Codex Alpha said: Residents presenting as Child Avatars shall be prohibited from the following: 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. https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Clarification_of_policy_disallowing_ageplay Please stop and read the F'ing TOS and related pages Ouch, that color really hurts in Dark Mode. @Rowan Amore, since Codex above says "Please stop and read the F'ing TOS.." I kindly refer his quote above to you, as I was quoting you. Otherwise, I won't be responsible enough to reply as a gentleman should. 🙂 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vivienne Schell Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 4 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said: Thanks for quoting this again, people keep conflating the new modesty panel requirement and the "must not be nude" requirement to mean, "must always wear modesty panels". I suspect the truth of the "modesty panel" requirement will be something simple like, "creators are required to supply modesty panels as an OPTION so that avatars will always have a way to not be naked". In other words, "free underwear" that you don't have to wear, but owning it means you don't have any excuse to be naked. What kind of underwear? Do you expect Linden Lab to add a fashion guide on undies? Like "string must be like that", "no holes", "transparency must be 40 % at least", "no thongs which expose this and that".....and so on and so on. Can of worms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codex Alpha Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 4 minutes ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said: It's not gaslighting to say that the term is too broad to be used in a meaningful way as part of the TOS. Nobody is trying to twist the meaning of the word to skirt any rules here, we're just saying that the TOS needs to be more specific so that people know what's expected of them. It works both ways, the more definitive the wording of the TOS is the harder it is for people to claim they just "misunderstood". Ok, so how should they clarify 'sexualizing' child avatars then. Have any suggestions? Should they list 20 actions and be vulgar descriptions of such sexualized actions, or do they need to list each item of clothing, a picture along with each, and justification, and define what animations are valid and are not? Seriously, that's impossible and should not be needed. And in all of this, people aren't taking into account that there will ALWAYS be nuance, context and investigation and "Up to our discretion" kind of thing in there, so the panic is unwarranted - other than those who skirt the line, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 1 minute ago, Codex Alpha said: Residents presenting as Child Avatars shall be prohibited from the following: 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. https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Clarification_of_policy_disallowing_ageplay Please stop and read the F'ing TOS and related pages Residents presenting as Child.Avatar shall be prohibited from being naked. The next sentence is about content creators being required to add.the panels. Where does it say that child avatars must wear content from child content creators with modesty panels? 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffee Pancake Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 2 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said: No where does it say the child avatar MUST wear them. If I missed that, someone show.me. Even when asked in the FAQ, the reply was the same. They did not say they must wear anything only that they couldn't be naked. An oversight? Perhaps but wording is important. The line in the ToS reads Quote 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. Which is being deliberately "rules lawyered" by some to mean child avatars should never be fully nude, and independently that body & skin creators have a chore to do. Realistically, I don't think anyone can honestly expect that kind of hair splitting to hold any water should it end up on governance's desk. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madi Melodious Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 1 hour ago, Leslie Trihey said: While I don't disagree that both SL child avatars and RL Children shouldn't wear certain items of clothing. Let's be real; If someone looks at an either an underage avatar or RL underage person and thinks "sexy!", the problem's not with the underage avatar/RL underage person, nor the clothing. The problem is the person having these thoughts about the underage avatar/RL underage person in question. This is one of those things I've been saying before joining SL. Children are not sexy, nude or otherwise. If you look at a nude child and the first thing you think is sexual, you are the problem not the child. What "annoys" some people is I apply that to both sides. The save the children side, and the pedo side. 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Hexem Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 1 hour ago, Dorientje Woller said: 1 % of the users of this body is abusing it to make a teen alt with it, so we will scr*w over the 99% that is using the body as intended. 45 minutes ago, Youri Ashton said: Linden Lab please do not punish everyone based on what a few are doing. Punish the right individuals instead. 10 minutes ago, Madi Melodious said: The bad guys will still do the exact same thing but now they will just stick to private sims. That's every law ever passed. Welcome to society. How old are you? 5 minutes ago, Vivienne Schell said: I really am tired of explaining that to you all over again. It's like they've got us muted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codex Alpha Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 1 minute ago, Love Zhaoying said: Ouch, that color really hurts in Dark Mode. @Rowan Amore, since Codex above says "Please stop and read the F'ing TOS.." I kindly refer his quote above to you, as I was quoting you. Otherwise, I won't be responsible enough to reply as a gentleman should. 🙂 Sorry, hehe. It's just that people aren't reading.. but they keep posting. If you're just as guilty, then so be it. I'm just befuddled as to why you and others here - who even if we disagree in the past - I still have some measure of how you guys formulate your arguments and seem to be intelligent.. but then are blind on this issue - or haven' read the TOS, or in coffee's case.. just decides to make statements and not respond and just laugh at my posts instead. But yeah, everyone read the f'ing tos 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Sharkfin Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 1 minute ago, Codex Alpha said: Ok, so how should they clarify 'sexualizing' child avatars then. Have any suggestions? If I had the answer to that question this thread would be a lot shorter, but that's one of the reasons why we're having a discussion. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vivienne Schell Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 3 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said: Residents presenting as Child.Avatar shall be prohibited from being naked. The next sentence is about content creators being required to add.the panels. Where does it say that child avatars must wear content from child content creators with modesty panels? Syntax and Context. 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. The following sentence makes absolutely no sense without being set into context with the one before Child avatars where the focal point of the body is on the breasts, pelvis, or buttocks That´s pretty clear. BUT. I pointed at that before in another post and no one grabbed it: What is a "Child Avatar Content Creator"? Maitreya certainly isn´t one, for example. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 (edited) 49 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said: The line in the ToS reads Which is being deliberately "rules lawyered" by some to mean child avatars should never be fully nude, and independently that body & skin creators have a chore to do. Realistically, I don't think anyone can honestly expect that kind of hair splitting to hold any water should it end up on governance's desk. The answer was even somewhat ambiguous... Q: I already have a child avatar that does not have a built in modesty layer. Can I still use that since I purchased it already? A: No. Going forward, child avatars will be prohibited from being fully nude. Why didn't they simply say...no child avatars can not wear any body that doesn't have a modesty panel. If someone switches from Tweenster because it has no built in panels to Maitreya flat or petite, then they aren't using their current body that doesn't have the panels. In two places, all they've really specified is.you can't be naked. Edited May 7 by Rowan Amore 5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Persephone Emerald Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 3 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said: Residents presenting as Child.Avatar shall be prohibited from being naked. The next sentence is about content creators being required to add.the panels. Where does it say that child avatars must wear content from child content creators with modesty panels? It doesn't. It can be implied, but it is not explicitly stated. I imagine any clothing with sufficient coverage, a diaper, or a bathing suit would be sufficient - with or without a modesty layer under it. Current skins and clothing should not need to be trashed. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 7 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said: It's like they've got us muted. I wonder why? OTOH (On the other hand), I don't blame them. I'd mute us too. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 Is it splitting hairs? Damn right. LL.being clear as mud shouldn't be surprising. We're going to be in the same boat if they don't clarify this rule.specifically. 6 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Hexem Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 Just now, Love Zhaoying said: I wonder why? OTOH (On the other hand), I don't blame them. I'd mute us too. I've seen people say they have several page long mute lists. You and I are certainly on at least a couple. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 1 minute ago, Paul Hexem said: I've seen people say they have several page long mute lists. You and I are certainly on at least a couple. Mine is 3 pages long. I just put someone "back on it". It's no loss. I just thought they were nicer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffee Pancake Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 1 minute ago, Rowan Amore said: Is it splitting hairs? Damn right. LL.being clear as mud shouldn't be surprising. We're going to be in the same boat if they don't clarify this rule.specifically. It does need to be rewritten, if it looks like a loop hole, then it is going to get people into trouble and lead to bad advice. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Youri Ashton Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 40 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said: "IYKYK" is an acronym which stands for, "if you know, you know". The meaning of this is, "if you already know, then you understand". "Free-balling" is a colloquial/slang term meaning, "without underwear" (applied to males). These things are getting out of hand haha, say what you mean is my preferred idea haha. But thank you for the explanation. 27 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said: Lets hope @Linden Lab @Keira Linden check the actual assets against screenshots included with abuse reports. Cache poisoning and texture substitution are a thing. You might not be naked. But that's doesn't stop someone making you naked with a little effort. I do hope things will be seen to what they really are indeed, not to "this is the report and with that we don't do any work and just ban someone". I however have to say I haven't had @Linden Lab do something like that in the past from what I know about. Although I am more known with the original Lindens and not with the newer ones (post 2014) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madi Melodious Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 1 hour ago, ErwinVonVlotho said: You're not listening. What anyone thinks and how sick it may be is not the issue. The issue is that LL don't want screenshots of naked child avatars in the news, and they are making it as difficult as possible for anyone to have a naked child avatar without just banning them completely. The modesty layer is happening. That decision has been made and it isn't going to be walked back. An this is part of the problem as I see it. Why don't the just come out and say that instead of just blowing smoke up our butts and hoping it comes out our ears. Just come out and say we have a reputation problem here and this is what we are proposing to fix it. Then ask us for feed back. Asking us for feedback is basically what they are doing under the table with this big thread. I actually think they see this thread as a god send; they don't know how to work this out which is why it has been open so long. Even with 230+ pages of nonsense, finger pointing, blame, and all around general helping of chaos. There are some good ideas in here, workable ideas that can be implemented. Much better ideas than what have dictated from on high. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts