So what changed in the Terms of Service?

[Arielle Popstar]

16 minutes ago, Anna Salyx said:

How so?  I mean really, how is the "proof"?  Governance is not going to discuss a single phoneme about the case with a third party, no matter how close.  So all we have is her account which is, allegedly, his truthful account, and passed on to us by yet another person.  That's a story that's 3 times removed.  His may or may not be truthful to her, she may nor may not be truthful to her friend, her friend telling us now may or may not be fully truthful.  The further away you get the murkier it becomes. Not saying it's not all transparently truthful, but the cold reality is that we can't take it on faith that shenanigans were indeed done by governance.  He said > she said > she said is a 'said' too far.

No but the more often cases like this are heard, the harder it becomes to give LL the benefit of the doubt.

[Persephone Emerald]

1 hour ago, Anna Salyx said:

 

Leashing in and of itself is not "sexual activity."  It might be, according to some, in bad taste, but not actionable unless other adjacent activity accompanies it. Stages of Dress/Undress, emoted activity from one to the other, animations playing, would all play a part in making it something that could be ARed, but leashing by itself.... no. It's not sex and it's not sexual activity. 

I can walk down the main street of Anytown, USA with my friend in tow on a leash and so long as we are both decently* dressed, that is everything covered, we are not going to be stopped, cited, or tossed in jail for moral turpitude. We can walk through Walmart and probably only get strange looks, but then it's Walmart, we might not be the strangest thing to see there. But even odds we won't be asked to top or to leave. At a local night club we might just be one of a crowd. In our local church?  Well I suspect that they might take objection and say something.  Maybe.

Silly games, and even displays power play, are not sexual activities in a vacuum. 

 

*for a given value of "decently and probably defined by some local code, or by private business owners policyl

There are harnesses with leashes made for young children in real life.

When I was a child and was prone to going my own way in stores, my mother put a cat collar on my wrist with a leash on it. I cried & said "I'm not a cat", but I didn't run off.

Edited May 7 by Persephone Emerald

[Arielle Popstar]

2 minutes ago, Indy Melody said:

I can't find the revelant documents now, but there are a handful violations other than CP that are automatic ban situations. Selling Lindens outside the LindenX is one I believe.

Maybe that then should be stated on the top of the ToS you think, not a hidden document in the dusty archives in some basement of San Francisco?

[Anna Salyx]

9 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

No but the more often cases like this are heard, the harder it becomes to give LL the benefit of the doubt.

and the jails are full of innocent people.

Snark aside, I do get what you're saying, even you must admit that when you're at friend of a friend of a friend who knew him 3 days, the credibility takes some mighty hits. The further away from the primary source the harder it is give full credence. But maybe that's just me. and I'm the last one to give corporations the benefit of a doubt in most cases.

Edited May 7 by Anna Salyx
add dropped word

[Indy Melody]

5 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Maybe that then should be stated on the top of the ToS you think, not a hidden document in the dusty archives in some basement of San Francisco?

No, was mainly saying I'm trying to cook supper and don't have time to find it. But it is out there. 

[Kathlen Onyx]

10 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Meh, it is a boiler plate contract. I don't mind leaving, just give me my Inventory and I'll go my merry way to another grid.

It's not your inventory. It's the property of Linden Lab so you can go your merry way over to the other grid where you say nothing like this happens there!

[Vivienne Schell]

9 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

a hidden document

So far the ban notificaton LL sent to that guy is a hidden document. /me coughs.

[Persephone Emerald]

33 minutes ago, Aya Sweetheart said:

3 days?  She barely knew him... I seriously doubt they banned his account just because someone made a claim.  I'm not trusting of LL or other peoples claim about them

We don't really know what happened. 

Maybe his ex was a crazy harpy, or maybe she was his ex because she found out he was doing bad stuff in SL?

[Vanity Fair]

19 hours ago, Coffee Pancake said:

A good half of this thread is dedicated to attacking child avatars, presumptions of guilt and illegal behavior, poorly veiled personal attacks, demanding they all be banned or locked to G regions.

Child avatars are the easiest group in SL to hate on and conjurer up straw-men to demean and attack them.

This is going to end up costing LL a lot of active and valuable SL users, and not for the new rules (that they support!!), but for the social fall out and leaving them feeling broadly unwelcome.

It's not fun. It's supposed to be fun.

This. THIS.

It’s part of the reason why I changed my ToddleeDoo child avatar to an adult woman. It’s just not carefree or fun to be a child avatar anymore. It’s just all gotten so heavy, so political. (The other reason is that she dates back to 2017 and I don’t want to jump through all the hoops required to make her legal after June 30th, even if it were possible.)

[Arielle Popstar]

1 minute ago, Anna Salyx said:

and the jails are full of innocent people.

Snark aside, I do get what you're saying, you must admit that when you're at friend of a friend of a friend who knew him 3 days, the credibility takes some mighty hits. The further away from the primary source the harder it is give full credence. But maybe that's just me. and I'm the last one to give corporations the benefit of a doubt in most cases.

In this case it is the friend of a forumite who from past posts doesn't seem prone to embellishments nor has a bone to pick with LL. In this case it is not so far removed from source as you seem to be implying. Quite a bit closer then Reddit posts though not as close as banned people I have met in Opensim.

[Theresa Tennyson]

2 minutes ago, Vivienne Schell said:

So far the ban notificaton LL sent to that guy is a hidden document. /me coughs.

Then how did he know what (in general) he was banned for?

[Vivienne Schell]

Just now, Theresa Tennyson said:

Then how did he know what (in general) he was banned for?

Did she?

[Persephone Emerald]

5 minutes ago, Vanity Fair said:

This. THIS.

It’s part of the reason why I changed my ToddleeDoo child avatar to an adult woman. It’s just not carefree or fun to be a child avatar anymore. It’s just all gotten so heavy, so political. (The other reason is that she dates back to 2017 and I don’t want to jump through all the hoops required to make her legal after June 30th, even if it were possible.)

People with kid avatars should get a Dinkie or tiny avatar. They can play just like kids, but are less likely to get propositioned or ARed by dirty old men (or women).

Edited May 7 by Persephone Emerald

[Theresa Tennyson]

Just now, Vivienne Schell said:

Did she?

 

52 minutes ago, Jordyn McGregor said:

Last night his account was banned for "violating the terms and conditions" of SL.  He'd been reported by a vindictive ex for "playing with personages not of age".  He appealed, but he is out.  No telling him what he sposedly did or giving him a chance to defend himself. 

 

[Vivienne Schell]

1 minute ago, Persephone Emerald said:

Kid avatars should get a Dinkie or tiny avatar. They can play just like kids, but are less likely to get propositioned or ARed by dirty old men.

Why would dirty old men get child avis banned? That is contradicting the interests of dirty old men.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Just now, Persephone Emerald said:

Kid avatars should get a Dinkie or tiny avatar. They can play just like kids, but are less likely to get propositioned or ARed by dirty old men.

I don't think those are quite the same thing . . .

"I'm sorry, you can't be an astronaut in SL. But it's lots of fun being a fireman! They get cool costumes too!"

[Kathlen Onyx]

1 hour ago, Madi Melodious said:

There is a mute list?  How is this magic possible?

It's not really a mute list.  You still see that they posted something but you have to click on it to read it. Don't bother muting anyone. Usually someone quotes the post where you can see it anyway or your curiosity will get the best of you and you will click to read it anyway. Waste of time really.

[Arielle Popstar]

1 minute ago, Vivienne Schell said:

Why would dirty old men get child avis banned? That is contradicting the interests of dirty old men.

Not really if they were rejected. I bet a fair few AR's are launched by rejected suitors.

[Persephone Emerald]

Just now, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I don't think those are quite the same thing . . .

"I'm sorry, you can't be an astronaut in SL. But it's lots of fun being a fireman! They get cool costumes too!"

I'm saying they can be an astronaut sometimes, but it might be safer to be a fireman sometimes.

[Persephone Emerald]

3 minutes ago, Vivienne Schell said:

Why would dirty old men get child avis banned? That is contradicting the interests of dirty old men.

The dirty old men do the propositioning. It might be the women who do the ARing.

[Love Zhaoying]

10 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

He'd been reported by a vindictive ex for "playing with personages not of age".  He appealed, but he is out. 

The subtext is, the ex's report had some apparent validity.

HOWEVER: If I met someone 3 days ago and heard this story, I'd suspect the whole thing was made up so the guy could get away from me.  It's not that I'm suspicious / untrusting of others, it's that people will make up all kinds of stories instead of just telling you the truth (their wives or mommies made them quit SL, they're not that into you and are actually just going to block you or make an alt, etc.)

 

Edited May 7 by Love Zhaoying

[Vivienne Schell]

1 minute ago, Love Zhaoying said:

The subtext is, the ex's report had some apparent validity

 

Linden Lab never tells the one they adress with warnings or even bans who exactly AR´d them. /me coughs

[Anna Salyx]

8 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

In this case it is the friend of a forumite who from past posts doesn't seem prone to embellishments nor has a bone to pick with LL. In this case it is not so far removed from source as you seem to be implying. Quite a bit closer then Reddit posts though not as close as banned people I have met in Opensim.

from my perspective it':

• You.  Telling me what
• She said...to you.  She told you,
• what he (whom has known 3 days? (from what I have come to understand)) allegedly said to her.

I had one too many legs in there it seems. But still, the very first source is him, an fairly unknown quantity telling her. She then filters the telling/account to you. And you filter her version/account to us. Still too many legs in that journey. And the first leg is, for my personal credibility sake, very wobbly.  If they had more history that might change that part of the equation for me. I dunno. <shrugs> 

And I"m not saying that you, or she, in the filtering and retelling process are deliberately trying to deceive, but the other cold fact is that 'witness' accounts are the most unreliable pieces of evidence there is.  Our brains are funny things that way.  not a judgement, just a fact. Ask any trial lawyer.

[Love Zhaoying]

2 minutes ago, Vivienne Schell said:

4 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

The subtext is, the ex's report had some apparent validity

 

Linden Lab never tells the one they adress with warnings or even bans who exactly AR´d them. /me coughs

Good point. So, that means to me, either:

1) The "Ex" told him she did that (made the report) or

2) The fact LL "never tells" (*depending on the situation) is more evidence the whole thing was "made up".

* We have recent posts from LL - in THIS thread, that they DO send "email warnings", and sometimes even take the opportunity to "reeducate" someone.  The understanding though, is that for the worst offenses - LL does NOT tell the person.

...Can we drop this now? The whole "moderation" aspect is off topic.

 

[BilliJo Aldrin]

2 hours ago, Vivienne Schell said:

 

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.

The modesty layer on the skin can't be removed from the skin, it doesn't say that the skin can't be removed from the body 😂