So what changed in the Terms of Service?

[Qie Niangao]

15 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

And another user suggested that even boy child avatars require a shirt.. lol.. How far and stupid and insulting are we going to take this?

I don't think anybody considers this a good outcome, but it seems an unavoidable consequence of this modesty panel thing, where girls are expected to have upper parts covered and there's no real difference between boy and girl avatars at that age. It's very silly, but I don't know there's a practical way to avoid it as long as that part of the policy means what it seems to say. 

[Leslie Trihey]

29 minutes ago, Vivienne Schell said:

If you ever logged in the failed Linden Lab Sansar thing....these layers were mandatory for everyone there. Not as if the clothes creators could not deal with the layers, they did. Now it only will become mandatory for child avis. And i wonder why some (by far not all) child players whine, cause hell, does a supposed to be 12 ys old girl avatar need to wear thongs, string bikinis or "sexy" lingerie instead of these undies ? Certainly not.

I can somewhat answer this from an SL fashionista perspective: BOM underwear can sometimes stick out from under clothing. EI; Panties being to to high in the waist so they are above your pant's/skirts/shorts/etc waistline. Underwear being visible with swim wear. The easiest way to deal with this is string underwear, strapless underwear, or a crotch cover.

Women and girls IRL also wear thinner underwear to avoid panty lines on tight clothing,

Edited May 7 by Leslie Trihey

[Rowan Amore]

5 minutes ago, Madi Melodious said:

Oh come on.  Where is your sense of humor.  We have been "discussing" this for 5 days now, the thread is over 200 pages, we have beating almost every possible topic to death, and resolved nothing.   The thread is winding down.   We can get a few laughs in before Whatshisname Mole comes along and close it all down.

Then I apologize.  Humor doesn't always translate so well in text.  These forums could use a humor font.  🤗

[Alwin Alcott]

1 minute ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

Oh I think the words "cannot be removed" in reference to modesty panels is a clear indication of why.

for me that's not a why, but a "what", that's something different.
We only heared the "whats" till now.
And i think we should get a why, and more. We deserve that.

[brodiac90]

4 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

That's your opinion, you get to dress yourself however you like.

But allowing child avatars to wear clothing that actual children in that age range can buy, in stores, in America, right now, should be perfectly fine.

As child avatar, not anymore actually. Ah had to have some humour. 

'Should' and the optics are very two different things. 

Edited May 7 by brodiac90

[Coffee Pancake]

1 minute ago, Qie Niangao said:

don't think anybody considers this a good outcome,

It's moving the goal posts .. if we can't ban them, try and limit them to the point that no one will want to have one.

 

[Sammy Huntsman]

5 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

If the argument is about policing what child avatars can and can't wear, lets take guidance from what can be purchased from real world big box retail stores.. oh look. stringy bikinis are fine.

 

to be honest with you, I don't think young girls should be wearing thongs and the things you generally see on adults. 

[Vivienne Schell]

2 minutes ago, Alwin Alcott said:

for me that's not a why, but a "what", that's something different.
We only heared the "whats" till now.
And i think we should get a why, and more. We deserve that.

Ummm...maybe cause LL want protect the Gorillas from the Zebras?

[Sammy Huntsman]

7 minutes ago, brodiac90 said:

I'd say this says more about modern society's sexualisation of children than anything else. When I was growing up, children did not look like mini adults and clothing aimed at children was a lot more modest and innocent in nature. Didn't stop the pervs though of course.... 

I wish they would bring back the more modest and innocent clothing for kids IRL. 

[ErwinVonVlotho]

1 minute ago, Coffee Pancake said:

It's moving the goal posts .. if we can't ban them, try and limit them to the point that no one will want to have one.

 

But they can ban them, any time they like. All LL have to do is say "Let's be realistic. This is an adult platform and most of its users are doing it like they do on the Discovery Channel. No more kid avis."

They're not doing that though.

[Coffee Pancake]

1 minute ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

I wish they would bring back the more modest and innocent clothing for kids IRL. 

A 12 year old in a swimsuit is innocent.

[Sammy Huntsman]

3 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

It's moving the goal posts .. if we can't ban them, try and limit them to the point that no one will want to have one.

 

I mean that seems like overreaching into people's lives and basically controlling them. 

[Alwin Alcott]

10 minutes ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

Oh I think the words "cannot be removed" in reference to modesty panels is a clear indication of why.

LL would like to be able to point at their platform and say "See, there is no child nudity & children are never in proximity of adult content!", (both of which would be an entirely positive thing for the platform as a whole).

Yes, but it's still no why this now happens. It's impossible by the origin of what they say, that had a total different purpose ánd content.
A full rage over the head of your residents about that is absurd, thats no why, but a total panic at the top.

Edited May 7 by Alwin Alcott

[Sammy Huntsman]

Just now, Coffee Pancake said:

A 12 year old in a swimsuit is innocent.

Sure, but you are avoiding the topic altogether. Why does a 12-year-old need what we would consider adults undergarments? 

[Zalificent Corvinus]

The question isn't "Can you buy stripper thongs for 12 yr olds online"

The question is "WHO buys stripper thongs for 12 yr olds online"

 

Is it the 12 yr olds with their credit cards?

Or is it some "Daddy".

 

So, no, people presenting as 12 yr olds in SL shouldn't have built in stripper thongs JUST because Coffee found a web store selling them.

Edited May 7 by Zalificent Corvinus

[Denim Robonaught]

6 hours ago, Chery Amore said:

This was one of the first comments that I woke up to and read. I see the confused reactions. Do you know or do get why they are reacting that way?  Don't you see that some of these roleplay ... or  "fun and games" scenarios come off as the start of a bad (and illegal) porno?  Or are you just going to cast a broad stroke and say we are all just dirty minded?

Yes, I believe you know what lines not to cross. But that you even use that sentence at the end says something. You need to re-evaluate how you roleplay or even joke around on the platform.

You're right. I was completely wrong to use that sentence. Since you compared an unplanned parent kid moment to fun and games and even a porn movie. obviously some don't know where that line is.

[Fluffy Sharkfin]

1 minute ago, Alwin Alcott said:

for me that's not a why, but a "what", that's something different.
We only heared the "whats" till now.
And i think we should get a why, and more. We deserve that.

I'm not entirely sure the "why" they're doing it really matters as much as the issue of "how" they're addressing the problem and details of what residents need to do to comply with their solution, which is what most people seem to be concerned about.

I think we can all come up with legitimate reasons for why LL are trying to rid SL of the behaviour that the new TOS addresses, I suspect the only people who are against the intent behind the changes (or at least my understanding of what they're trying to achieve) are exactly the people LL are trying to discourage.

[Coffee Pancake]

Just now, Sammy Huntsman said:

Sure, but you are avoiding the topic altogether. Why does a 12-year-old need what we would consider adults undergarments? 

It's a swim suit. You know .. to go swimming in, hang out on a beach, do summery beachy watery outdoorsy things in ..

It' not underwear, that's something else.

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

8 minutes ago, Alwin Alcott said:

for me that's not a why, but a "what", that's something different.
We only heared the "whats" till now.
And i think we should get a why, and more. We deserve that.

Expand  

I'm not entirely sure the "why" they're doing it really matters as much as the issue of "how" they're addressing the problem and details of what residents need to do to comply with their solution, which is what most people seem to be concerned about.

I think we can all come up with legitimate reasons for why LL are trying to rid SL of the behaviour that the new TOS addresses, I suspect the only people who are against the intent behind the changes (or at least my understanding of what they're trying to achieve) are exactly the people LL are trying to discourage.

Which?

[Sammy Huntsman]

Just now, Coffee Pancake said:

It's a swim suit. You know .. to go swimming in, hang out on a beach, do summery beachy watery outdoorsy things in ..

It' not underwear, that's something else.

Yeah, we get that. But we are talking about underwear and modesty layers here. Not about swimsuits. Lol 

[Sid Nagy]

14 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

A 12 year old in a swimsuit is innocent.

As a RL teacher who has years of experience with teaching that age of kids:
Not always in RL. Or better mostly not.
They might not always oversee what they are signaling at times, but basically all of them know how sexy clothing looks and where it is used for. Kids ain't dumb or stupid or living on the other side of the moon.

Edited May 7 by Sid Nagy
Small text improvements.

[Ayashe Ninetails]

I haven't shopped at Kohl's in years, but some of that looks geared towards the late teen juniors crowd. The younger tween/big girls stuff has more coverage, usually.

For SL and virtual worlds in general, it'd be best to lean more into the fuller coverage for underaged avatars than whatever skimpy crap they sell to teens in real life. 

[Luna Bliss]

7 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

I wish they would bring back the more modest and innocent clothing for kids IRL. 

 

[Alwin Alcott]

1 minute ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

I'm not entirely sure the "why" they're doing it really matters as much as the issue of "how" they're addressing the problem and details of what residents need to do to comply with their solution, which is what most people seem to be concerned about.

I think we can all come up with legitimate reasons for why LL are trying to rid SL of the behaviour that the new TOS addresses, I suspect the only people who are against the intent behind the changes (or at least my understanding of what they're trying to achieve) are exactly the people LL are trying to discourage.

it does matter, because it's irrational.
And if that is the matter, the next group can start packing their stuff.
tinies are pretty innocent, but the furries? Are those safe? I'm affraid that's a no.

[Sammy Huntsman]

Just now, Luna Bliss said:

 

I love how I say modesty and you go for reaching to the Victorian era. Lol. Like I mean 80s and 90s modesty on kids. How do you get that from what I said? Lol