Love Zhaoying Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 1 minute ago, Youri Ashton said: These things are getting out of hand haha, say what you mean is my preferred idea haha. But thank you for the explanation. If you stick around the Forum, you will learn a lot of internet / slang acronyms! These should help if you don't know them already: OTOH = "On the other hand" IIRC = "If I remember correctly" AFAIK = "As far as I know" ETA = "Edited to add" OP = "Original Post" / "Original Poster" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinnamon Mistwood Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 I am hoping, for the sake of everyone's expensive inventories, that the new TOS just requires BOM modesty coverage. That way people can change the colors or styles. BOM can only be removed by the wearer (unlike mesh clothing.) If a child avatar is seen in the wild, no one can derender clothes making them naked. "Cannot be removed" is taken care of. LL does need to clarify minimum coverage of those panels. Soon. If a child avatar is out in the wild and their clothing is derendered to make them naked, it was because they broke the TOS and hadn't put on the BOM layer coverage. The responsibility is still on the adult playing the child, but with BOM they can change the modesty layer color or style. Most importantly, they also get to continue using everything they bought and collected over the years. Unless... Are their child avatar bodies that don't allow BOM layers? All the extra discussion on what is "sexualized" or what we each think a "child" or "adult" look like is pointless. The only ones whose opinions matter are the ones looking at the ARs. They can't be defined. As soon as someone tries to define it, someone else will find a way around it. If you think someone is breaking TOS, AR them and let it go. 7 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chery Amore Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 21 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. I didn't read it that way but now I see what you are saying. Yes definite clarification needed. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 1 minute ago, Cinnamon Mistwood said: Unless... Are their child avatar bodies that don't allow BOM layers? Older, pre-BOM bodies probably..? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 1 minute ago, Cinnamon Mistwood said: All the extra discussion on what is "sexualized" or what we each think a "child" or "adult" look like is pointless. The only ones whose opinions matter are the ones looking at the ARs. They can't be defined. As soon as someone tries to define it, someone else will find a way around it. Yes. The "Opinions" don't really help (like with the "my avatar looks young" posts). Unfortunately, our interpretation of the TOS changes is mostly "Opinions" too, at this point! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffee Pancake Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 3 minutes ago, Madi Melodious said: There are some good ideas in here, workable ideas that can be implemented. Much better ideas than what have dictated from on high. I don't expect the ToS to change now. LL aren't in the habit of adjusting policy based on community review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissSweetViolet Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 1 minute ago, Cinnamon Mistwood said: I am hoping, for the sake of everyone's expensive inventories, that the new TOS just requires BOM modesty coverage. That way people can change the colors or styles. BOM can only be removed by the wearer (unlike mesh clothing.) If a child avatar is seen in the wild, no one can derender clothes making them naked. "Cannot be removed" is taken care of. LL does need to clarify minimum coverage of those panels. Soon. If a child avatar is out in the wild and their clothing is derendered to make them naked, it was because they broke the TOS and hadn't put on the BOM layer coverage. The responsibility is still on the adult playing the child, but with BOM they can change the modesty layer color or style. Most importantly, they also get to continue using everything they bought and collected over the years. Unless... Are their child avatar bodies that don't allow BOM layers? All the extra discussion on what is "sexualized" or what we each think a "child" or "adult" look like is pointless. The only ones whose opinions matter are the ones looking at the ARs. They can't be defined. As soon as someone tries to define it, someone else will find a way around it. If you think someone is breaking TOS, AR them and let it go. Some of the unsupported bodies are non BoM, but as far as I know, all the currently supported ones are. The only one I don't remember about is Tweenster, maybe someone who uses it can let us know if it does? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayashe Ninetails Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 10 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said: 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 specific is.you can't be naked. I agree, the Answer portion needs to be rewritten. This is how I interpret it: Q: I already have a child avatar without the built-in layer. Can I wear it? A: No. If that's what they actually mean, then the answer could use a little touching up. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theresa Tennyson Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 13 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said: 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 specific is.you can't be naked. The answer to whether you can use an avatar without a modesty layer was "no." If the criteria was only that the avatar could never be fully nude the answer would have been, "Yes, but..." 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 Next question: If a non-BOM body supports "appliers", can't appliers be used just the same as "BOM" - meaning, nobody can "de-render" the applier layer, since it is a texture and not physical clothing? (And yes, I saw the post someone made earlier about how a bad actor could use "texture switching", which is an extreme edge case.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vivienne Schell Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 8 minutes 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. Not necessarily. If it stays as it is, people who use (for example) not specificaly "designed for kids" bodies are still required to use these panels, but will rely on the goodwill of the skin creators. And if none of these will release a "paneled" skin... Because, read in context: Child avatars 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 where the focal point of the body is on the breasts, pelvis, or buttocks That´s how Interprete this. And that may or may not cause problems. If the skin creators don´t uupdate the Child Avi Player will be forced to use a specifically "designed for kids" Avi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffee Pancake Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 1 minute ago, MissSweetViolet said: The only one I don't remember about is Tweenster, Tweenster has both built in skins and full BOM support, however, they are somewhat mutually exclusive in the current body. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 Just realized I'm slacking on this thread, my posts make up for less than 10% of all replies. (This is an example of self-deprecating humor, and is not intended to actually be a "humble-brag".) 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codex Alpha Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 4 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said: Yes. The "Opinions" don't really help (like with the "my avatar looks young" posts). Unfortunately, our interpretation of the TOS changes is mostly "Opinions" too, at this point! So my vote is changing definitely now to "Yes include baked on undies for child avatars" w/e that gets implemented, because obviously no one here agrees to any descriptive words used, don't know what the words mean, so to play it safe and get to the goal, yep.. baked underclothes for all. I was all for debate, and I argued all sorts of positions, but it's clear that LL is right, and just do for the community what they cannot do for themselves. Since apparently we all 'interpret' words differently, LL will have the final say, and now I'm all for it. Same as government has to make laws, because people can't police themselves, and have to have everything spelled out to them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 Do they really not know.that all child avatars don't use child specific bodies? Sorry but obviously some of us interpret the rules one way and some another. This is definitely going to cause issue. What is implied needs to simply be stated unequivocally and it does not do that... Obviously 4 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Sharkfin Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 I've been trying to think of ways in which residents using child avatars could keep using existing skins without body creators needing to add additional polygons as a modesty layer. I initially thought that simply separating the necessary polygons from their default UV and remapping them to a tiny, pixel sized, corner of the UV space then assigning a separate material to them so they could be tinted but not textured. The problem with that is, even though it would allow them to use their existing skins and would allow them to wear existing mesh clothing without having a modesty layer poking through it, it would also prohibit them from using any clothing layer/BOM items since the parts of the body that aren't correctly UVd would not display the texture for system layers. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 2 hours ago, Vivienne Schell said: Ummm...maybe cause LL want protect the Gorillas from the Zebras? Then they should have started on the zoology regions and their fans 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 2 hours ago, brodiac90 said: I honestly do not see how LL can ignore furry cubs given the seismic changes to child avatars in general. Because whoever is tempted by children doesn't lean to furry cubs most likely. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vivienne Schell Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 2 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said: Do they really not know.that all child avatars don't use child specific bodies? I think that they know that very well. And i strongly doubt that they will even think of changing the principkle of baked on skin modesty panels, because this is the simplification they need and want. And not some underwear fashion guides over 50 pages wher they must define what goes and what does not go. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffee Pancake Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 1 minute ago, Arielle Popstar said: Because whoever is tempted by children doesn't lean to furry cubs most likely. It's something of a known 'cheat'. It's also not like the furry community aren't aware of this either, it come up at every single convention. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 15 minutes ago, Ayashe Ninetails said: I agree, the Answer portion needs to be rewritten. This is how I interpret it: Q: I already have a child avatar without the built-in layer. Can I wear it? A: No. If that's what they actually mean, then the answer could use a little touching up. Exactly. That avatar you're wearing without the panels.can't be worn but anyone can edit Maitreya down to younger teen size and wear that one. Only specific requirement I can see is no nudity. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madi Melodious Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 47 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said: 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. My body actually comes with something like this. I suspect some of the reason behind the modesty panels is LL doesn't want people derendering clothing. I have a underwear set that sits so close to the body that if you try to derender it, the whole body gets derendered. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 5 minutes ago, Vivienne Schell said: I think that they know that very well. And i strongly doubt that they will even think of changing the principkle of baked on skin modesty panels, because this is the simplification they need and want. And not some underwear fashion guides over 50 pages wher they must define what goes and what does not go. So basically, a rule doomed to fail as written. Sounds about right. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 1 minute ago, Madi Melodious said: My body actually comes with something like this. I suspect some of the reason behind the modesty panels is LL doesn't want people derendering clothing. I have an underwear set that sits so close to the body that if you try to derender it, the whole body gets derendered. That usage of "panels" sounds like an extra, physical layer. Perhaps that is what LL means all along? It solves the BOM issue.. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brodiac90 Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said: That usage of "panels" sounds like an extra, physical layer. Perhaps that is what LL means all along? It solves the BOM issue.. It would, but it would also break all mesh content. Edited May 7 by brodiac90 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts