The new ToS and something I don't think was taken into consideration by LL.

[Dorientje Woller]

1 minute ago, Starberry Passion said:

V-tech is suppose to be for the femboy look, not child avatar.

True, but with the correct female child skin, you can make it look like an underaged girl.

[Zalificent Corvinus]

Just now, Anna Salyx said:

Edited to take it fully out of context to force that reach, doncha think?

Not really.

This thread started with somebody trying to make a child avatar with an adult body as an example of why they want the new ToS revered. And I keep seeing the Tiny Terrror tot movment ssaying stuff like this.

14 minutes ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

While all content creators are required to add modesty panels to any body or skin, I'd imagine that LL will be fine with any avatar wearing a skin and body combination as long as one of them has the non-removable modesty panel (and as long as the mesh itself isn't too "anatomically correct").

Nowhere do they make ANY attempt to limit their claim to CHILD avatars.

The very first page of this thread included somebody saying Maitreya should update with enforced modesty panels.

 

This thread is increasingly about dodging the new ToS, and ./or trying to force the child avatar restrictions on adults.

 

 

 

[Ayashe Ninetails]

2 minutes ago, Starberry Passion said:

V-tech is suppose to be for the femboy look, not child avatar.

There's not much difference between Lara Flat and V-Tech at all. I wear both. You could very easily make a teen male (or female) avatar using either one.

[Starberry Passion]

1 minute ago, Dorientje Woller said:

True, but with the correct female child skin, you can make it look like an underaged girl.

So you're telling me because a small group of people, V-tech users can't even enjoy themselves?

[Starberry Passion]

2 minutes ago, Ayashe Ninetails said:

There's not much difference between Lara Flat and V-Tech at all. I wear both. You could very easily make a teen male (or female) avatar using either one.

V-tech stopped supporting Maitreya, Maitreya has flat so it doesn't need V-Tech. 

[Dorientje Woller]

Just now, Starberry Passion said:

So you're telling me because a small group of people, V-tech users can't even enjoy themselves?

No, I said, true that it's being used for femboys, but there is the risk that it can be abused to make a child avatar.

[Coffee Pancake]

This is not about imposing restrictions on adults using adult bodies. It’s for child  avatars who have down scaled an adult body. Very common if the intended age is mid teen and up. 

[Fluffy Sharkfin]

12 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

Nowhere do they make ANY attempt to limit their claim to CHILD avatars.

I don't know which they you're referring to so don't really know how to respond.

12 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

The very first page of this thread included somebody saying Maitreya should update with enforced modesty panels.

Well then I suspect the person that suggested it is being a little unrealistic.

12 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

This thread is increasingly about dodging the new ToS, and ./or trying to force the child avatar restrictions on adults.

No, it's not, it's discussing what users of adult bodies who present themselves as teens and users who consider their avatars representative of adults but realize that may not be the shared perception should be taken into consideration by LL.

There's no angry mob with torches and pitchforks coming to take away your genitalia, so how about you take it down a notch?!

Edited May 8 by Fluffy Sharkfin

[Theresa Tennyson]

Now we're seeing the reason for specific wording in the policy. The policy says that modesty panels are required to be provided by creators in products made [specifically] for children.

For the end user, Child avatars can never be nude. Doesn't say boo about modesty panels.

So, if an older child is using a body intended for adults, they'll need to cover up things their ownself.

If someone sells a skin by calling it, "Super Sweet 16 Dewy Teen Skin," yes, it needs to have underwear. But nothing in the policy says the dewy 16 year old has to wear a skin with that description. Underwear? Absolutely.

A lot of my avatars are characters that have looks ranging from child to adult. A lot of them use the same Pink Fuel or Izzie's skins for all those ages, with different body development handled by tatoo layers. As far as I can tell, as long as they wear underwear when anyone can see them they can keep using the same skins.

[Ayashe Ninetails]

2 minutes ago, Starberry Passion said:

V-tech stopped supporting Maitreya, Maitreya has flat so it doesn't need V-Tech. 

I know, V-Tech stopped supporting Maitreya quite a bit ago. I still use it, though, because some stores don't support Lara Flat but do still carry older stuff they'd made for V-Tech Lara. I swap back and forth based on what I want to wear and where I'm shopping, basically. Lara Flat doesn't have quite as large an inventory as V-Tech did (and LaraX's offerings are even more slim). Especially for skins.

I mean technically, Catwa only makes human heads, but I've used mine to create an orc. I've used my very human Maitreya body to create very not human mermaids and creatures. I've worn my living room chandelier on my head as a hat. There's nothing that says someone can't use a body or mod designed for X to create Y.

 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

2 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Now we're seeing the reason for specific wording in the policy. The policy says that modesty panels are required to be provided by creators in products made [specifically] for children.

For the end user, Child avatars can never be nude. Doesn't say boo about modesty panels.

So, if an older child is using a body intended for adults, they'll need to cover up things their ownself.

If someone sells a skin by calling it, "Super Sweet 16 Dewy Teen Skin," yes, it needs to have underwear. But nothing in the policy says the dewy 16 year old has to wear a skin with that description. Underwear? Absolutely.

A lot of my avatars are characters that have looks ranging from child to adult. A lot of them use the same Pink Fuel or Izzie's skins for all those ages, with different body development handled by tatoo layers. As far as I can tell, as long as they wear underwear when anyone can see them they can keep using the same skins.

This is a sensible approach and understanding.

It will never fly.

[Zalificent Corvinus]

3 minutes ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

so how about you take it down a notch?!

How about you stop saying things like "all content creators are required to add modesty panels to any body or skin".

 

 

[Fluffy Sharkfin]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

This is a sensible approach and understanding.

It will never fly.

Yes, far too easy to understand, not nearly vague or murky enough!

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Just now, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

Yes, far too easy to understand, not nearly vague or murky enough!

I hardly feel personally threatened by it at all!

There must be something terribly wrong with it.

[Fluffy Sharkfin]

1 minute ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

How about you stop saying things like "all content creators are required to add modesty panels to any body or skin".

 

 

Line from the TOS...

Quote

Child avatar content creators are required to add a modesty layer which is baked into child avatar skins or bodies

My reference to the line from the TOS

34 minutes ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

While all content creators are required to add modesty panels to any body or skin

I'm not going to specify ad nauseum that I'm talking about creators of child avatars just to satisfy your delicate sensibilities when everyone else seems to have no problems comprehending what I mean.  If you want to have any further conniptions about your misperceptions of what I'm saying, that's your problem not mine.

 

[Qie Niangao]

The Child Avatar Policy didn't change. Wiki software has a handy version history tab and it hasn't changed since May 2nd when they updated it for the new TOS sign-in acceptance and then added a link to the FAQ.

Obviously that FAQ changed, in good ways. But we're still having the same confusion about the non-removability of those modesty panels. To try to fend off another 250 pages of this, could we maybe formulate a question for Tommy Linden or somebody who could get a definitive answer about this?

I'd just love to hear that the Senra avatar shown in the FAQ could use a base skin that had those modesty areas integral to that base skin, and therefore unremovable from that skin, and that would be acceptable to use to present as child, and that the very same avatar could use a different shape and skin (or alternatively a skin-textured tattoo layer) without those modesty areas to present as adult.

That would make me feel like grown-ups were in charge.

Edited May 8 by Qie Niangao
first was to be "present as child" grr

[Istelathis]

55 minutes ago, Dyna Mole said:

No, please.  🙂

Remember the days, when Thunes was all the rage of the forums.  

Simpler times, I miss them, it feels like it was just last week.

 

[VanVox]

I imagine that people roleplaying under 18 who are using an adult body with a flat or petite chest add-on to appear pre/pubescent would be expected to comply with all the same rules in the TOS that apply to child avatars, including the use of modesty layers.

[Love Zhaoying]

4 minutes ago, Istelathis said:

Remember the days, when Thunes was all the rage of the forums.  

Simpler times, I miss them, it feels like it was just last week.

 

IKR? Now the bear, I mean bar, has been raised.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 minute ago, Qie Niangao said:

The Child Avatar Policy didn't change. Wiki software has a handy version history tab and it hasn't changed since May 2nd when they updated it for the new TOS sign-in acceptance and then added a link to the FAQ.

Obviously that FAQ changed, in good ways. But we're still having the same confusion about the non-removability of those modesty panels. To try to fend off another 250 pages of this, could we maybe formulate a question for Tommy Linden or somebody who could get a definitive answer about this?

I'd just love to hear that the Senra avatar shown in the FAQ could use a base skin that had those modesty areas integral to that base skin, and therefore unremovable from that skin, and that would be acceptable to use to present as adult, and that the very same avatar could use a different shape and skin (or alternatively a skin-textured tattoo layer) without those modesty areas to present as adult.

That would make me feel like grown-ups were in charge.

So, there is still confusion concerning . . .

1) Whether child avatars must use dedicated child avatar (or tween, or teen) bodies that have been designed to include "modesty panels" (whatever that actually means). Or can they use adult bodies with add-ons as necessary?

2) Whether child avatars will, as of June 30, be required to wear new skins (or mesh bodies) with modesty panels/layers (whatever those mean) , or can instead wear some combination of add-ons and BOM undies that would functionally achieve the same thing -- in other words, ensuring that they are "never naked"

3) What exactly does LL mean by "panels" and "layers"???

What am I missing?

[BilliJo Aldrin]

2 hours ago, Codex Alpha said:

 

If a reasonable person would look at the features of your avatar and consider it underage, we would recommend not engaging in adult activities on that account.

Child Avatar FAQ: Linden Lab

what an effing joke, underage isn’t just kids, its anyone under 18. I’m short, so if i wear the wrong clothes and wear my hair the wrong way, some one could go my my my, look at that underage girl doing adult things, i better report them? on the other hand, it could be some disgruntled creep i just told to get lost. 

Edited May 8 by BilliJo Aldrin
punctuation

[BilliJo Aldrin]

Maybe LL should just come out and say, if you wanna be considered adult you must be at least 6 ft 6 inches tall .

[Qie Niangao]

I think they always use "modesty layer". The "panel" term probably got minted in the monster thread, maybe by accident. (I still want to call them "temple garments" but that didn't catch on.)

The thing about #2 is that there's a "No" to start the response to the FAQ about continuing to use an already bought child avatar. That conflicts with a plain reading of "skins or avatars" in the Policy and the Senra illustrations in the FAQ. So I'd like clarification that a pre-existing child avatar could be in compliance when used with a compliant skin with integral modesty layer.

Edited May 8 by Qie Niangao
typoooo

[Dorientje Woller]

6 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

Maybe LL should just come out and say, if you wanna be considered adult you must be at least 6 ft 6 inches tall .

Once again ... over my dead pixelated body. My avatar is a reflection of the RL me, and I did already compromise in height to be considered as an adult in here. If I would use my RL height, I would be kicked out every club, region or whatever that is on Moderate or Adult land.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

2 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

I think they always use "modesty layer". The "panel" term probably got minted in the monster thread, maybe by accident. (I still want to call them "temple garments" but that didn't catch on.)

You're right: panel doesn't appear in either the guidelines or the FAQ. I thought at one point it did, but I might be mistaken. In any case, it now appears to be a non-issue.

I'd still like a clarification of "layer," which can refer to BOM, "onion layers" on mesh bodies, or, conceivably, skins.

 

3 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

(I still want to call them "temple garments" but that didn't catch on.)

I have a Vestal Virgin outfit ready to go!

5 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

The thing about #2 is that there's a "No" to start the response to the FAQ about continuing to use an already bought child avatar. That conflicts with a plain reading of "skins or avatars" in the Policy and the Senra illustrations in the FAQ. So I'd like clarification that a pre-existing child avatar could be in compliance when used with a compliant skin with integral modesty layer.

Yeah, this part is a mess -- in part because "layer" is undefined but also because, as you say, it seems inconsistent with what is said elsewhere. And the use of a Senra body as an illustration muddies that further.