So what changed in the Terms of Service?

[Kathlen Onyx]

1 hour ago, MissSweetViolet said:

Also important to remember we only know what the guy said, but we don't know how her friend looks [could she look young enough to get him in trouble?], what he might of been up to otherwise, etc. She met him 3 days ago, 3 days....That's not long enough to trust some enough to call them "your perfect guy" in real life, let alone SL.

OMGosh this is so true!  What is up with people that fall in love or say they found their perfect mate after less than a week?

I met someone on Friday of last week. We "clicked" and had a lot of the same interests and things we enjoyed RL in common. He was fun to talk to.

By Wednesday he was telling me he loved me and talking about this being a RL relationship. He'd never talked to me on voice or saw my picture YET he was in love with me. He got a bit irritated and defensive when I said that "no, you can't possibly love me and it makes me uncomfortable when you say that" 

He then went on to say that he wanted to spend all his SL time with me and never wants me to be alone here so if he's AFK or has to be gone he'll just leave his avatar logged on. *HUGE RED FLAG*

My friend thought I should talk to him about this and make him see I only want a SL relationship. I know this type, talking would be fruitless. When I said I only wanted SL he said "fine" but I could tell that he was doing that only because I said it, not because he wanted to.

I simply removed him from my friends list and blocked him after sending him a short message saying that I don't want a RL relationship and he's way too intense for me after a week of knowing me for a SL relationship.

I think what may have happened is that perhaps the ex did AR him and LL perma banned him. They may not have spelled it out to exactly what he was doing but I'm pretty sure an email was sent that stated he violated some part of the TOS.  No company is going to tell you exactly what you did and write it down for you to have. They will simply refer you to the part of the TOS you violated.  The friend could simply not know what he was up to a week before she met him.

Edit: oh yeah...PEOPLE LIE HERE ALL THE TIME.

 

Edited May 8 by Kathlen Onyx

[Vivienne Schell]

7 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

We keep telling Arielle that, but I think she doesn't believe it.

Arielle could hit Linden HQ and grief Obwerwolf by throwing some worn modesty panels at him, or something, then wait for the warning....or the permaban. Only way to convince her, i fear.

[Innula Zenovka]

24 minutes ago, Madi Melodious said:

How does this tos affect a chid avatar listing things on the market place?  I'm thinking of doing some art online, nothing adult themed, but there might be some moderate content.  The tos covers items directed towards child avatars but nothing sold by said avatars.

Since it nowhere mentions listing things on the marketplace I don't see how it can affect what you list there one way or the other.    

[Arielle Popstar]

11 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

We keep telling Arielle that, but I think she doesn't believe it.

1 minute ago, Vivienne Schell said:

Arielle could hit Linden HQ and grief Obwerwolf by throwing some worn modesty panels at him, or something, then wait for the warning....or the permaban. Only way to convince her, i fear.

No, I believe you but realize in spite of all the prattle, collective you are as much in the dark what those instaban infractions are as the rest of us.

[Monika Skydancer]

Just now, Arielle Popstar said:

No, I believe you but realize in spite of all the prattle, collective you are as much in the dark what those instaban infractions are as the rest of us.

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure that seeing as he got an instaban then lost an appeal there *was* an infraction. I mean otherwise where did his ex get the evidence?

[Vivienne Schell]

1 minute ago, Monika Skydancer said:

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure that seeing as he got an instaban then lost an appeal there *was* an infraction. I mean otherwise where did his ex get the evidence?

I have evidence that some Linden stalked my ex lover cause the friend of my ex lover told me so.

[Arielle Popstar]

2 minutes ago, Monika Skydancer said:

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure that seeing as he got an instaban then lost an appeal there *was* an infraction. I mean otherwise where did his ex get the evidence?

Well maybe she instigated an underage slex session with him under her alt account. Obviously she was the vindicate type so set him up.

[Vivienne Schell]

Just now, Arielle Popstar said:

Well maybe she instigated an underage slex session with him under her alt account. Obviously she was the vindicate type so set him up.

Scotty failed to beam him up.

[Rowan Amore]

27 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

The ToS and it's faq are documents intended to inspire us to have confidence in how the Lab operates. Some degree of transparency is required to give us a degree of faith that they are doing what they said they will. Otherwise, why would anyone choose to invest in a platform that can remove one's investment on a whim without giving some explanation communicated in whatever way is best? That is not about legalities, there are multiple ways they can communicate directly and indirectly that they are worthy of our confidence in their leadership and operations.

Personally, I'm not seeing that at the moment.

So you're saying, LL banned him, someone spending hundreds of dollars each month because of a report by a vindictive ex for absolutely no reason?   What would their reasoning be to do that?  He said he appealed so.he was getting communications.  They DO tell you what you did as I've seen that exact AP ban email.someone posted on another website.   How exactly can LL be transparent about something like this without exposing themselves to a libel suit?  They're doing it just for sh*ts and giggles?  Since no one but the banned person knows about it for certain, they can't be doing it to "show they're doing something" about AP when they can't show anyone except the one involved.

Does anyone think it would be hard for LL to check chat logs for a specific avatar on a specific day at a specific time to check?  All.the report would need to provide is those dates and times.  I keep my chat logs.  I can find what anyone said to me on any given day.  They can, too.

 

[Monika Skydancer]

5 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Well maybe she instigated an underage slex session with him under her alt account.

Right. And attached a pic of her underage alt banging his avi to the AR. Yep, that's gonna go well. Ain't gonna get her a ban at all.

5 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Obviously she was the vindicate type so set him up.

I don't dye my hair this color, so could you maybe explain to me why this is obvious?

[Katherine Heartsong]

3 hours ago, Coffee Pancake said:

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.

This is how I personally read it as well.

The first part is what you need to do, and the second sentence is explaining how it will be accomplished to satisfy the new ToS.

LL obviously needs to clarify, but I personally think that if you're not seeing the intent of the two sentences working together, I'm not sure that rehashing the meaning will make it clearer since it's being interpreted two very different ways.

Let's let LL have a go at this and wait for clarification.

[Love Zhaoying]

7 minutes ago, Vivienne Schell said:

Scotty failed to beam him up.

I think the quote applies, "Scotty - beam me up, there's no intelligent life down here."

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Monika Skydancer said:

9 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Obviously she was the vindicate type so set him up.

I don't dye my hair this color, so could you maybe explain to me why this is obvious?

It's not. There possibly was no ex involved, and never was. We have no way of knowing. Arielle is making up a story to go around the little bit of information we were told. 

[Love Zhaoying]

I find this whole discussion of someone else's (probably fake) drama extremely tiring, so I'm calling it a night.

Y'all keep up this thread.

Write posts!

DEFEND THE CHILLUNS!

 

[Kathlen Onyx]

51 minutes ago, Madi Melodious said:

How does this tos affect a chid avatar listing things on the market place?  I'm thinking of doing some art online, nothing adult themed, but there might be some moderate content.  The tos covers items directed towards child avatars but nothing sold by said avatars.

You aren't a child. So you, as an adult, selling anything that is acceptable on the marketplace is fine.

I am beginning to think that those roleplaying children really do think they are children.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Almost four pages speculatively re-litigating a case about which we know next to nothing has to be the surest sign I've seen yet that this thread has outlived its usefulness.

[Arielle Popstar]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Almost four pages speculatively re-litigating a case about which we know next to nothing has to be the surest sign I've seen yet that this thread has outlived its usefulness.

At least till further updates to confuddle the issue.

[Madi Melodious]

13 minutes ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

You aren't a child. So you, as an adult, selling anything that is acceptable on the marketplace is fine.

I am beginning to think that those roleplaying children really do think they are children.

I know of one child av that was banned for making and selling adult furniture.   The person making it wasn't a child in RL ether.    You will forgive me if I error on the side of caution.  

[Coffee Pancake]

1 minute ago, Arielle Popstar said:

At least till further updates to confuddle the issue.

well we get to find out how long the magic underpants need to be

[Frankie Antonioni]

2 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Almost four pages speculatively re-litigating a case about which we know next to nothing has to be the surest sign I've seen yet that this thread has outlived its usefulness.

I think we should go for 10,000 pages. See if that would be a world record.😁

[Arielle Popstar]

2 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

well we get to find out how long the magic underpants need to be

I was wondering about that earlier today when I was thinking of messing with the skins of a mesh body to see what it would look like and how much it would interfere with various clothes. Then realized we weren't given any clues.

[Innula Zenovka]

8 minutes ago, Madi Melodious said:

I know of one child av that was banned for making and selling adult furniture.   The person making it wasn't a child in RL ether.    You will forgive me if I error on the side of caution.  

With respect, you know of one child av who says that's what they were banned for.   You have no way of knowing the whole story.

[Arielle Popstar]

3 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

With respect, you know of one child av who says that's what they were banned for.   You have no way of knowing the whole story.

even if she did, she wouldn't be believed if it put our overlords in a bad light.

[Madi Melodious]

5 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

With respect, you know of one child av who says that's what they were banned for.   You have no way of knowing the whole story.

True.  But really making and selling adult furniture with a child av.  I think we can both say that is pretty, errr, not wise. 

[Qie Niangao]

3 hours ago, Codex Alpha said:

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

This was from hours ago, but in case it's not yet apparent: People have read the hell out of that Child Avatar Policy and the associated (but not included) FAQ, both of which may be subject to revision and certainly clarification. And in their current state, they do not say what you think you read. They might end up being interpreted to mean what you think you read. Or not. A big share of the pages of this thread are devoted to that problem. Read it as many times as you want, the problem is still there.

There are also practical and logical problems with requiring the modesty panel to be the one and only acceptable means of preventing nudity. One worth noting:

2 hours ago, brodiac90 said:

Which ever direction we go there will be consequences. If child avatars can't use BOM that will severely limit the content they can use forever. If you go down the route of adding physical mesh layers to body's that have modesty layers painted on and can't be removed, you would heavily inconvience people a lot in the short term, but in the long term as new content became available you would still be able to use BOM. 

BoM is a very big deal, the Lab invested a lot of developer time in it and so have many (many) content creators. Suddenly BoM is in peril, first from PBR (because it never did even Blinn-Phong materials, let alone glTF) and now from 2K textures, grid-wide as of today (which BoM can solve with some implementation effort and a bunch more resources for the baking service). And now this policy spurs talk of requiring a whole class of avatars to either stop using the baking service or have special modesty panel geometry that BoM essentially bakes around (trivially defeated by a standard geometry layer worn on top of the modesty panels, painted with the BoM system textures, et voilà, ready to display the same content exactly the same way as before the policy change). Anyway, it's tough times for BoM and this ain't helping.