So what changed in the Terms of Service?

[Annie Evergreen]

I know this will be an unpopular opinion. There are A LOT of things that go on in SL that no one in their right mind would do in real life. People choose to do those things in SL, or not. Their choice. Some people choose to be children in SL. I don't often meet any, because I'm just not interested in hanging out with children, not in SL and not in real life. But the few I've met in SL were basically adults playing with their young-looking avatar. Not my thing, but you do you.

I've known actual child victims in real life, and real life predators. It is sickening what can happen. Those things cannot happen in SL. People can take things out of SL, but it's physically impossible for it to happen here with avatars. I really can't give a rat's behind worrying about protecting a 2-dimensional figure in an imaginary world. I'll save my outrage for real people.

LL can change their TOS to deal with the issue, but it's like putting a bandaid on a virtual wound. It has the appearance of fixing an issue, but in reality it's more like virtue signalling.

[Alwin Alcott]

10 hours ago, Qie Niangao said:

I agree that they were responding to garbage. But I'm not so sure they had much choice in how they responded, given the hearty appetite for that garbage. (That's not to say the specific responses are sensible, but broad brush, no matter how absurdly off-base the accusations, there's an eager market for any scandal involving Second Life. I don't think they could have dismissed it all with the contempt it deserved.)

the accusations and naming was indeed garbage. But the story itself was what we could call "based on real stories" from the movie industry .. ánd thát was a wake up call for many.

[Daniel Regenbogen]

9 hours ago, VanVox said:

It would be good practice to just alpha out the chest and pelvis in addition to the modesty layers, that way no one can ever see those areas.

AR; Xyz has alphaed out her/his pubic region, so when I cam under the skirt I can‘t check if she/he is wearing the demanded modesty layer. There must be something going on that violates the new ToS.

[Leslie Trihey]

28 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

-long post snipped for scrolling convenience-

 

 

Good lord that was a lot to unpack. I'm sorry that you think the uh, "AR clickbait" is out to get you. But your suggestion to blanket ban a specific type of avatar over a series of what ifs, maybe's, and hyperbole and things that are already being dealt with would be an attack on the freedom of expression we've enjoyed for years. An unnecessary one at that. And leads me to "What's next?"

Edited May 8 by Leslie Trihey

[Alwin Alcott]

8 hours ago, Madi Melodious said:

Whooo..   My life here just got so much better.  If you are ever in town and looking for good hottub I know where one is.  

you don't need to open that list, hover over the name next to the post and start the process there

[Love Zhaoying]

51 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I see we've reached the "Why are SL kids?" stage of the discussion.

Not the first time!

[Coffee Pancake]

.

Edited May 8 by Coffee Pancake

[Scylla Rhiadra]

LL has made it absolutely clear they have no intention of banning child avatars. That is literally not up for debate.

In fact, as annoying and maybe onerous as some of these new changes are, they actually signal that LL wants to accommodate that community as best it can, while responding to concerns -- real or imagined, present or future -- about the ways in which child avatars can be abused by the few who employ them for AP.

Child avatars and the kinds of non-sexual RP that are the focus of the vast majority of those representing as children are every bit as valid as anything else people do in SL. It's not more "silly" than 90% of what people get up to here.

Don't like child avis? Fine. Ban 'em, derender 'em, mute them here if you like. Whatever.

But wasting time and space on THIS thread just for the joy and pleasure of crapping on them is not merely pointless and counter-productive: it's obnoxious and hurtful. Frankly, some of you are sounding like school ground bullies yourselves now.

And it's an abuse of a space that LL and the mods here are providing us, and actually protecting, for real discussion about how everyone's freedoms in SL can be safely protected.

Let it do what it's supposed to do.

Edited May 8 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Zalificent Corvinus]

5 minutes ago, Leslie Trihey said:

I'm sorry that you think the uh, "AR clickbait" is out to get you

Really? So you haven't noticed any of your little gang demanding modesty patches on Adult mesh bodies, or the convversion of M rated land to G rated, or demanding the revoking of allowed nudity on M rated,, or that LL should stop "punishing everyone" (meaning just your little gang) and catch the real criminals who by implication are always "the ones in adult bodies"

 

what about the false claims that clickbait participants in illegality are "victims"?

That claim sounds like "hyperbole to me.

If you accept the tp, and take part in the illegality, of your own free will, you are NOT a victim.

 

[Coffee Pancake]

There really needs to be a concrete statement from @Linden Lab in support of the child avatar community after this thread.

[Leslie Trihey]

16 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

Really? So you haven't noticed any of your little gang demanding modesty patches on Adult mesh bodies, or the convversion of M rated land to G rated, or demanding the revoking of allowed nudity on M rated

 

Nobody is sincerely demanding modesty patches for adults, it's a jest. A couple people have suggested turning some moderate public land to G, and restricting nudity on moderate public land. I can assure you that's not happening. This will be my last comment on this because as Scylla pointed out in a previous post, a total child av ban isn't happening either, and you and I are just wasting space.

Edited May 8 by Leslie Trihey

[Persephone Emerald]

2 hours ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

AR Clickbait makes a mesh "apple pie" and uploads to the MP, not a problem.

Depends on if the apple pie has Adult animations.

[Alwin Alcott]

29 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

No it wasn't.

... use the search inworld with the right words and your eyes will open.

The base of the story is real. It doesn't make it less true by raising your voice.

Edited May 8 by Alwin Alcott

[Zalificent Corvinus]

2 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

Depends on if the apple pie has Adult animations.

What you and a consenting fruit pie over the age of 18 get upto behind closed doors is entirely your own concern.

[AnthonyJoanne]

2 hours ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

Pictures or it didn't happen.

Also, check back over the last233 pages and see how many AR Clickbait have screamed "I would rather die than wear an adult avatar!", including a teenage slumlord, who objected to having to change to collect rent from their A rated properties, and the "immersion" fanatics.

Even if they use an "adult alt" to actually test the thing, they will be standing nearby in their Clickbait, watching their alt get lewded by the contraption, and that's an automatic ToS Violation.

 

I hate to be pedantic (I'm lying, I love it) ... but I'm pretty sure he was a pre-teen slumlord.

Just sayin'

Edited May 8 by AnthonyJoanne
typo

[Kathlen Onyx]

21 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

LL has made it absolutely clear they have no intention of banning child avatars. That is literally not up for debate.

In fact, as annoying and maybe onerous as some of these new changes are, they actually signal that LL wants to accommodate that community as best it can, while responding to concerns -- real or imagined, present or future -- about the ways in which child avatars can be abused by the few who employ them for AP.

Child avatars and the kinds of non-sexual RP that are the focus of the vast majority of those representing as children are every bit as valid as anything else people do in SL. It's not more "silly" than 90% of what people get up to here.

Don't like child avis? Fine. Ban 'em, derender 'em, mute them here if you like. Whatever.

But wasting time and space on THIS thread just for the joy and pleasure of crapping on them is not merely pointless and counter-productive: it's obnoxious and hurtful. Frankly, some of you are sounding like school ground bullies yourselves now.

And it's an abuse of a space that LL and the mods here are providing us, and actually protecting, for real discussion about how everyone's freedoms in SL can be safely protected.

Let it do what it's supposed to do.

This post needs to also be applied to all the Child Avatars that are complaining about the changes as well. It isn't the resident's that they should be angry with, it's LL. The residents did not call for this action. LL did.

When I hear things like "people are luring me to..." that sounds like an excuse waiting to happen. Never have I ever been LURED anywhere in SL. Anywhere I have gone has been of my own free will.  

Any posts beyond this are now the responsibility of LL and the mods.  All that needs to be said has been said. If people come to the thread later they can read it and if they have input an email should be set up for their feedback, which TBH should have been set up before they announced the changes.

THEN LL needs to clarify exactly what they mean with the TOS and SHOW people what the modesty panel needs to be and how it needs to be applied. I.E. body, skin, whatever.

It's now Tuesday evening and no one is the wiser about this modesty panel which really IS the only thing causing an issue right now.

 

[Leslie Trihey]

19 minutes ago, AnthonyJoanne said:

I hate to be pedantic (I'm lying, I love it) ... but I'm pretty sure he was a pre-teen slumlord.

Just sayin'

Slumlordin' ain't easy but it sure beats a paper route.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

43 minutes ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

All that needs to be said has been said.

Yes, quite possibly. Although I think some fresh thinking about the issue of child avis and nudity on Moderate regions would be nice.

44 minutes ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

an email should be set up for their feedback, which TBH should have been set up before they announced the changes.

This is an excellent idea -- although I can see it being abused. But let LL sort out the chaff.

45 minutes ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

THEN LL needs to clarify exactly what they mean with the TOS and SHOW people what the modesty panel needs to be and how it needs to be applied. I.E. body, skin, whatever.

It's now Tuesday evening and no one is the wiser about this modesty panel which really IS the only thing causing an issue right now.

Yes, that's the most outstanding issue right now. There might be more reason to comment when we see what LL  comes up with.

[Sid Nagy]

Has the demand for "a free pony for everybody" already been discussed?
I saw so many unrealistic ideas and demands while scanning trough the during my night accumulated posts, this one can easily added IMHO.

I'd prefer a brown one, thanks. 

 

 

Edited May 8 by Sid Nagy
Rearranged the text a bit to make more sense.

[Jaylinbridges]

26 minutes ago, Sid Nagy said:

Has the demand for "a free pony for everybody" already been discussed?

If it has a tail, it is not a child, so nothing to discuss.  You can ride your pony all night, anywhere you want.

Will you settle for a Donkey ?

 

Edited May 8 by Jaylinbridges

[Qie Niangao]

56 minutes ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

THEN LL needs to clarify exactly what they mean with the TOS and SHOW people what the modesty panel needs to be and how it needs to be applied. I.E. body, skin, whatever.

💯

It would make sense if the Child Avatar Policy was the product of several authors, melded together by a legal assistant in a PR firm, reviewed, hashed over, edited a few more times until it was both ambiguous and technically impractical, then released because decision makers just couldn't stand to look at it anymore so it must be okay.

They probably aren't all that eager to look at it again now, in fact. And it's probably not going so well when they do.

It does kind of bother me, though, that somebody dreamt up this temple garment myth and they made it policy without anybody ever creating a Senra existence proof they could share with the class.

[Kathlen Onyx]

6 minutes ago, Jaylinbridges said:

If it has a tail, it is not a child, so nothing to discuss.  You can ride your pony all night, anywhere you want.

When you post misinformation all you are doing is setting them up. Was that your intent?

I hope no one is stupid enough to follow your advice.

[Chery Amore]

Just wanted to chime in on the child avatars needing to have separate accounts bit that was going on earlier. There are no rules for this that I'm aware of.

Earlier in the thread I suggested it was a good course of action in my mind... and I still believe that. So I hope I didn't add to any confusion.  But it's like @Rowan Amore being classy on moderate land and changing clothes while making sure she's covered through the process or me just popping them off and trying on the new set.  Neither of us are breaking the rules just one of us is being more polite and will be seen better because of it. 

I can see the point though that people have mentioned about collecting data or running an adult shop when on a child avatar. I can see where even hiding groups might not be enough as you might be scrutinized more closely also. I've had to do this when deciding to accept avatars into certain levels of groups. I've seen where others have too.. like a roleplay place catering to children might not accept you in their group or on staff if you switch but have picks or groups that are sexual.. it's unseemly and you are somewhat guilty by association for mixing it up. Right or wrong.

 

 

[InnerCity Elf]

15 hours ago, MissSweetViolet said:

I would hope just a don't be nude rule is good enough be it a skin or BoM underwear, the result would be the same. If a child avatar was seen nude or engaging in something they shouldn't, they risk being AR'd. SL has the rule in place so it should be plenty of cover if someone violated it, it would be a clear violation, and not SL's fault. I don't see how anything is needed beyond that.

Actually, what confuses me (yes, I'm in the 'live my lifes in a perpetually confused state of being' camp) the most, is the apparent reduction to the "props", in the widest sense, on both child playing person's avi's body, skin, children's accessories, etc., on the one, and adult land, adult animations, etc. on the other.

Those props are certainly an important point. Maybe, but only maybe, I think, this kind of ToS adjusting will scare away some. However, modesty layer or not, adult animations or not, those are "supporting visuals", but people who want to ap, will do without, if they must. I haven't seen anything so far that deals with text, and I'm guessing that's the even more important component than wether the child avi will have a modesty layer or not. I'm sure that many people who do "adult play" would agree that the partner with even the most explicit visuals would "lose" against even a fully clad partner who has a way with words. 

In conclusion, to me, it seems that, so far, it's also "just" a "visual commitment", to prevent specific photos from being snapped than something that will eliminate ap. A needed, and applaudable commitment, though, obviously, especially after the commotion that the Medium article caused, and considering that any kind of medium might resort to "oh no, look at SL, what a cesspool!" if they don't have more interesting things to cover or want to distract from something.

As for the text part of ap, of course, in theory, it's covered by "don't engage in it" parts of the ToS, but will there be more coming, as they can't imply a modesty layer on text that easily? Will there be AI monitoring all and any chat and IM, and alert real people for specific words and expressions, who'll then check in on people's chat, including chat of people with false positives? To me, that seems far more of an "incursion" than making people who want to play children wear a "modesty layer". If I'll ever play a child again, I'll happily get a new avi, skin, clothes, whatever needed new for that modesty layer. I'll not be so happy knowing that my chats are being monitored, especially not in combination with verification, and I don't even want to do adult sexual play. Not sure if that level of privacy invasion of everyone would be worth it to catch the few who ap if it's both consenting adults doing the ap. If there's actual children, that's another thing, but that would surely be something that needs to be handled at the registration level, i.e. age verification.

It's a real tightrope walk, and the rope probably will get tighter and tighter with time passing. I don't know how tight of a rope I want to walk, while doing nothing that's against any laws in the first place, or how many Residents feel the same and will value their privacy over SL eventually. 

What I do know is that I certainly don't envy the people whose job those kind of decisions are, and that I'd like to be kept updated about the "road map", timely. Hoping for the best, though, I really like SL.

[Jaylinbridges]

33 minutes ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

When you post misinformation all you are doing is setting them up. Was that your intent?

I hope no one is stupid enough to follow your advice.

Take it up with Linden Lab.  Humans don't have tails or equine ears, but a pony does.  Sorry that following the LL Child Avatar FAQ is misinformation to you.

Q: I am a child avatar in SL. How do I shop for anything, when many of the popular stores for furniture, AOs, gestures, etc. have both regular and adult versions in their Moderate rated store?

A: As stated above, child avatars cannot engage or participate in the use of adult versions of such content. It may be best to create an outfit with a non-human or non-child human persona to run errands such as shopping, such as any of the default Second Life avatars, robots, et cetera.

Edited May 8 by Jaylinbridges