So what changed in the Terms of Service?

[Alwin Alcott]

10 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

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

I think so too... but reality is different, in SL but also RL .
 

[brodiac90]

1 minute ago, Alwin Alcott said:

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.

I honestly do not see how LL can ignore furry cubs given the seismic changes to child avatars in general. 

[Sammy Huntsman]

Just now, Alwin Alcott said:

I think so too... but reality is different, in SL but also RL .
 

I don't think child avatars or children should be doing that whatsoever. 

[Coffee Pancake]

1 minute ago, Luna Bliss said:

 

Exactly .. everyone gets to have an opinion, but if they sell it in kohls or wal-mart  .. it's got to be fine whatever.

My teen swims suits were extremely minimalist and i wasn't buying them myself, my own kid was more self conscious and looked like they had just taken their shoes off and called it good enough.

[Alwin Alcott]

Just now, brodiac90 said:

I honestly do not see how LL can ignore furry cubs given the seismic changes to child avatars in general. 

in fact it should be for nearly any humanoid or semi humanoid youngsters

[Vivienne Schell]

5 minutes ago, Sid Nagy said:

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 a 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.

Seems as if he real kids are alot more smarter than the old farts playing kids in SL?

[Zalificent Corvinus]

2 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

I love how I say modesty and you go for reaching to the Victorian era

Be glad she didn't reach for the Victorian underwear.

Many people overlook the fact that those "oh so modest" bloomers were basically crotch-less, or at best fastened by a couple of buttons with a fair bit of gape.

 

 

[ErwinVonVlotho]

2 minutes ago, Alwin Alcott said:

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.

What's irrational about it?

A rather dubious article talked about a**play on SL. For LL, the nightmare scenario is that this is followed up by a lurid story in a tabloid newspaper, complete with screenshots of naked kids bouncing on daddy's lap. LL's response is to make it as hard as possible for child avatars to be naked, and firmly establish that from now on any child avatar who is naked has gone to some lengths to deliberately break the rules. This seems perfectly rational to me.

[Fluffy Sharkfin]

8 minutes ago, Alwin Alcott said:

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.

Which is why I agree very much with (what I believe to be) the intent behind their actions but am questioning their approach since it does seem to unfairly impact a small group of residents when there could potentially be other options which are less restrictive with only a minor added inconvenience for everyone else.

(If you're arguing that a minority of innocent residents being forced to bear the brunt of these new precautions is too heavy-handed, I'm right there with you, it is!)

Edited May 7 by Fluffy Sharkfin
typo

[Denim Robonaught]

6 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

 

And naturally the more modest clothing for adults too of course!

[Sammy Huntsman]

My one big issue is, that this is both an RL and SL thing. But why are people sexualizing kids and then infantilizing adults? Make that make sense to me. That is the biggest issue I see here. I don't see a problem with the new rules, and even the modesty thing. It's the fact of those 2 points I bring up. 

[Coffee Pancake]

Just now, Sammy Huntsman said:

My one big issue is, that this is both an RL and SL thing. But why are people sexualizing kids and then infantilizing adults? Make that make sense to me. That is the biggest issue I see here. I don't see a problem with the new rules, and even the modesty thing. It's the fact of those 2 points I bring up. 

Children want to look older, adults want to look younger.

it's not rocket surgery.

[Alwin Alcott]

Just now, ErwinVonVlotho said:

This seems perfectly rational to me.

it's close to victim blaiming to put it in such extreme form on the heads of young rp'ers without even a slight warning... i did read the whole not to be named post, it was just partly about this subject. The abuse and opportunity was the problem, and that doesn't change in all eternity with a nudity patch nor closing half the grid for a group.

[Sammy Huntsman]

1 minute ago, Coffee Pancake said:

Children want to look older

And you think that's okay? I just want kids to be kids and look like kids. Not be treated to look like or act like mini-adults. 

[Vivienne Schell]

2 minutes ago, ErwinVonVlotho said:

What's irrational about it?

A rather dubious article talked about a**play on SL. For LL, the nightmare scenario is that this is followed up by a lurid story in a tabloid newspaper, complete with screenshots of naked kids bouncing on daddy's lap. LL's response is to make it as hard as possible for child avatars to be naked, and firmly establish that from now on any child avatar who is naked has gone to some lengths to deliberately break the rules. This seems perfectly rational to me.

Add that a fair share of that article (not even the ***** part) could trigger an investigation by police, and probably a civil case. Cleaning the house, as far as possible and needed,  is mandatory.

[Madi Melodious]

2 hours ago, Vivienne Schell said:

If one uses a skin without modesty panels it´s a violation of the ToS. BOM would open a can of worms, because it cannot be standardized. What if some guys use 95 percent transparent panties? See, they want to make it as hard as possible for people to go completely nude or "cute" or "sexy" while running a child avi.

An as it has been over and over, what they want is impossible with the current platform the way it as.   

Here is what is going to happen.  Those of us that really enjoy the platform and play by the rules will give up some of our freedoms, lots of money, and time so we can continue to enjoy it in the size we choose too.  We will eventually, after grumbling a lot,  conform because it will be the best in the end once the bugs are worked out.

The bad guys, the once who are cause the problems.  Weill kick back with a beer after the last ban.  They will create a new account, upload non-compliant skins and bodies, and proceed as if nothing happened.   That is what is going to happen.

What the Lab is trying to do, despite good intentions, will not stop the problem and in the end might actually make it worse.  

[Paul Hexem]

1 hour ago, brodiac90 said:

Exactly, we discussed it earlier. IF that is the case then I'm potentially going to lose about 2000 items of clothing. Do the math on how much that is going to cost. 

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Welcome to reality. Sometimes rules or laws change and oops, all our stuff has to be trashed now. Next time burn your money, it'll be faster.

I guarantee you (people that play kids in SL) support or have supported laws in RL that have done this to people in RL. This change in TOS is no different. You guys are only upset this time because this time you're affected.

[Sammy Huntsman]

2 minutes ago, Vivienne Schell said:

Add that a fair share of that article (not even the ***** part) could trigger an investigation by police, and probably a civil case. Cleaning the house, as far as possible and needed,  is mandatory.

What part of those pictures could trigger an investigation by police?

[Flea Yatsenko]

Sorry for calling SL a game but video games have never been held to the same standards as real life sexuality.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

29 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

This is actually an interesting question.

Is it?

lol i think it is, its a d/s thing

[Coffee Pancake]

Just now, Paul Hexem said:

You guys are only upset this time because this time you're affected.

we're next, papers please !!

[Vivienne Schell]

2 minutes ago, Madi Melodious said:

An as it has been over and over, what they want is impossible with the current platform the way it as.   

Here is what is going to happen.  Those of us that really enjoy the platform and play by the rules will give up some of our freedoms, lots of money, and time so we can continue to enjoy it in the size we choose too.  We will eventually, after grumbling a lot,  conform because it will be the best in the end once the bugs are worked out.

The bad guys, the once who are cause the problems.  Weill kick back with a beer after the last ban.  They will create a new account, upload non-compliant skins and bodies, and proceed as if nothing happened.   That is what is going to happen.

What the Lab is trying to do, despite good intentions, will not stop the problem and in the end might actually make it worse.  

Aha. So what is your suggestion then? Ban child avatars completely?

[Coffee Pancake]

2 minutes ago, Flea Yatsenko said:

Sorry for calling SL a game but video games have never been held to the same standards as real life sexuality.

Boob Armour and combat thongs for everyone.

[Alwin Alcott]

2 minutes ago, Vivienne Schell said:

Cleaning the house, as far as possible and needed,  is mandatory.

totally true, but not just the first floor, and by telling nothing, other than some assuring words, it wil damage trust, faith and more, not only between residents, but also the company. Not for the first time, but as in heart failures... second, third becomes worse... forth might be unrepairable

[Paul Hexem]

2 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

we're next, papers please !!

Unfortunately, it's a little late to play that card.