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

[Monika Skydancer]

47 minutes ago, Dorientje Woller said:

But it doesn't reflect how the one who filed the AR precieved you. It even differs from viewer to viewer.

That ain't important. It's how LL perceives you that's important, so they want a baseline & that's midday settings. That means nobody can play around with EEPs to make you look younger before taking a screenshot.

[HarrisonMcKenzie]

4 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

Does not compute. Does not compute. Does not compute.

There's a difference between what you mean and the words you use. What is meant is that child avatars are supposed to be clothed. What's actually written suggests that clothing is prohibited because you aren't allowed to make your underwear zone (which must not be covered) transparent with an alpha in order to wear other clothing 

What is meant is that these policies will make rules about decency more clear. What's actually written fuels a witch hunt that marginalized a certain population, which itself appears to be against the company's own policies.

What's intended is these policies will keep people safe and combat the exploitation of minors. What's written is the exact opposite because it inherently sexualizes depictions of minors and treats them like sexual objects.

This is actually very problematic, and that's before we get into whether this is damaging and outright discrimination. There is a lot more here than you realize if you're only reading the words at surface level.

[Codex Alpha]

9 minutes ago, HarrisonMcKenzie said:

There's a difference between what you mean and the words you use. What is meant is that child avatars are supposed to be clothed. What's actually written suggests that clothing is prohibited because you aren't allowed to make your underwear zone (which must not be covered) transparent with an alpha in order to wear other clothing 

What is meant is that these policies will make rules about decency more clear. What's actually written fuels a witch hunt that marginalized a certain population, which itself appears to be against the company's own policies.

What's intended is these policies will keep people safe and combat the exploitation of minors. What's written is the exact opposite because it inherently sexualizes depictions of minors and treats them like sexual objects.

This is actually very problematic, and that's before we get into whether this is damaging and outright discrimination. There is a lot more here than you realize if you're only reading the words at surface level.

Ok I might understand where you're coming from.. but the spirit of the policy is that the base avatar skin must have the modesty undies painted on, and that it is not just a layer of clothing.

or "Being fully nude" means you are not allowed to walk around without a modesty layer

Fully nude meaning 'no clothing' and probaby relating to the modesty layer "with no modesty layer as well"

Child avatar content creators are required to add a modesty layer which is baked into child avatar skins or bodies, is not transparent, does not match the skin tone, and may not be removed.

I don't think the use of alphas gonna be a problem - it's the INTENT of the alpha, that is meant to replace the tidey whiteys with something else. EVen if the alpha was just a gaping hole, that means nothing.
They don't want people swapping things out and silly stuff like that

Edited May 9 by Codex Alpha

[Theresa Tennyson]

8 minutes ago, HarrisonMcKenzie said:

There's a difference between what you mean and the words you use. What is meant is that child avatars are supposed to be clothed. What's actually written suggests that clothing is prohibited because you aren't allowed to make your underwear zone (which must not be covered) transparent with an alpha in order to wear other clothing

Or you could just buy pants that fit.

[Monika Skydancer]

13 minutes ago, HarrisonMcKenzie said:

What's actually written suggests that clothing is prohibited

Only if you close one eye, tip your head to one side and sorta peer at it through your bangs. Back here in the real world it don't suggest that at all. What it says is the modesty layer can't be transparent. It don't say anything about it not being able to be alphaed out. The reason it can't be transparent is so you can't see the skin through it. If it's alphaed out you can't see the skin. I mean this is pretty obvious.

[brodiac90]

10 minutes ago, Monika Skydancer said:

Only if you close one eye, tip your head to one side and sorta peer at it through your bangs. Back here in the real world it don't suggest that at all. What it says is the modesty layer can't be transparent. It don't say anything about it not being able to be alphaed out. The reason it can't be transparent is so you can't see the skin through it. If it's alphaed out you can't see the skin. I mean this is pretty obvious.

Exactly, we clarified this in the main thread.

• Child avatars must always wear the modesty layer.
• If they're not wearing any mesh clothing, then the modesty layer will be visible and they won't be nude. 
• If they're wearing mesh clothing, then the modesty layer may potentially be alpha'd out but will still be there - no one is going to know though because the kid will obviously be fully clothed and not nude. 
• So long as child avatars wear the modesty layers and aren't nude then whether the modesty layers are visible or not is somewhat mute. LL's main message is 'don't be nude.' If no one ever sees a modesty layer but kids have clothes on then LL will see that as mission achomplished. 

Edited May 9 by brodiac90

[Love Zhaoying]

19 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Or you could just buy pants that fit.

But leaving the top few buttons undone is stylish!!!

[Koyomi Yoshikawa]

I am following the discussion here and the other thread which was closed by a Linden about the new ToS about child avies.
I am sure someone asked that already, but I have not seen it in the mass of replies.

What I do not understand is following.
First of all, I need to clarify one thing. This modesty layer is enforced in order no one can de-render it.
As far as I understand BoM, BoM worn panties and bras are not removable by someone else, except the child avie user.
Why is LL going such an extreme way, to enforce that modesty layer, which must be done by the body creators, without even knowing, if the creators will do that? I suppose LL will not force them to do that for all of their products?
Would it be not easier, to make it mandatory, that child avies must wear solid BoM panties and bras which covers the areas, shown in the examples for the modesty layers?
Again, my thoughts go with the fact, that BoM cannot be removed by anyone else, except the avie user.
You could say now, the child avie user could simply remove the BoM but the same goes for the body with the modesty layer, which can be easily replaced by a body without modesty layer. Both actions would be violating the ToS in the same way.
For both to discover, you must look beneath the attached clothes of the child avie and even then you might see nothing if the areas are alpha'd out.

[Codex Alpha]

@Koyomi Yoshikawa Pretty sure there isn't going to be the Panty Police out there.

Pretty sure such investigations won't be happening and it's like anything else: Attract attention to yourself by doing something against the TOS inworld, then yeah people might have to investigate.

[Kaia Sachin]

43 minutes ago, HarrisonMcKenzie said:

 What's actually written suggests that clothing is prohibited because you aren't allowed to make your underwear zone (which must not be covered) transparent with an alpha in order to wear other clothing 

This is something that needs clarification. Many child avatars who wear the modesty layers will also alpha those areas for good measure. Especially those on the younger end, because wearing something akin to a bra can actually defeat the purpose of drawing attention away from the chest.

[HarrisonMcKenzie]

11 minutes ago, Koyomi Yoshikawa said:

I am following the discussion here and the other thread which was closed by a Linden about the new ToS about child avies.
I am sure someone asked that already, but I have not seen it in the mass of replies.

 

What I do not understand is following.
First of all, I need to clarify one thing. This modesty layer is enforced in order no one can de-render it.
As far as I understand BoM, BoM worn panties and bras are not removable by someone else, except the child avie user.
Why is LL going such an extreme way, to enforce that modesty layer, which must be done by the body creators, without even knowing, if the creators will do that? I suppose LL will not force them to do that for all of their products?
Would it be not easier, to make it mandatory, that child avies must wear solid BoM panties and bras which covers the areas, shown in the examples for the modesty layers?
Again, my thoughts go with the fact, that BoM cannot be removed by anyone else, except the avie user.
You could say now, the child avie user could simply remove the BoM but the same goes for the body with the modesty layer, which can be easily replaced by a body without modesty layer. Both actions would be violating the ToS in the same way.
For both to discover, you must look beneath the attached clothes of the child avie and even then you might see nothing if the areas are alpha'd out.

 

The specific language I've seen used is that this modestly layer cannot be removable. That's suggesting that it needs to be a part of your skin rather than a layer you are choosing to wear.

I would certainly hope people aren't derendering kids' clothing to check for these things, as that would be extremely problematic (reminds me of those stories of real life Japanese schools checking the colour of girls' underwear, because Japan). Rather, I would hope that any policing comes from really explicit problem behaviour and not uncomfortable paranoia.

[Monika Skydancer]

4 minutes ago, Kaia Sachin said:

Many child avatars who wear the modesty layers will also alpha those areas for good measure.

Nobody cares. I mean the point of the modesty layer is totally obvious, ain't it? It's to make sure bare kid skin ain't visible. Y'all making a fuss about alphaing it out know that ain't gonna be a problem. There's nothing in the TOS says it can't be alphaed out.

[MissSweetViolet]

1 hour ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Or you could just buy pants that fit.

I mean, adult clothing doesn't always fit without alpha'ing various areas, kids clothing is the same way.

[Qie Niangao]

33 minutes ago, Koyomi Yoshikawa said:

[…]
You could say now, the child avie user could simply remove the BoM but the same goes for the body with the modesty layer, which can be easily replaced by a body without modesty layer. Both actions would be violating the ToS in the same way.
[…]

This is exactly right, and why I'm still hoping the whole "modesty layer" thing will get clarified into something that isn't so silly. It's not only that it's equally easy to intentionally violate the nudity prohibition with or without the modesty layer, but the same is true of accidental violation.

Making something not removable (whatever that really is intended to mean) doesn't really prevent anything at all—unless they blacklist every inventory copy of any body that could ever be used to represent an underage human, which includes Senra and most others in general use by adults, too, which I'm sure they don't intend to do.

Personally I have no issue with a mandatory modesty change imposed on all child skins and bodies sold after June 30th, but that's really just as a convenience for the buyer. Actual compliance with the nudity prohibition will always remain necessarily the responsibility of the child avatar user, whether they have a new modesty-paneled avatar or not.

[MissSweetViolet]

49 minutes ago, Monika Skydancer said:

Nobody cares. I mean the point of the modesty layer is totally obvious, ain't it? It's to make sure bare kid skin ain't visible. Y'all making a fuss about alphaing it out know that ain't gonna be a problem. There's nothing in the TOS says it can't be alphaed out.

It doesn't seem to be there now so they may have changed since, but at one point it mentioned it could not be alpha'ed out.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 minute ago, MissSweetViolet said:

It doesn't seem to be there now so they may have changed since, but at one point it mentioned it could not be alpha'ed out.

They may well have removed that language precisely because it was confusing. What was clearly meant was that you couldn't "hide" the modestly layer in order to show what was underneath. If you alpha out undies baked into the skin or body, you're also hiding the body beneath it.

[Qie Niangao]

3 hours ago, HarrisonMcKenzie said:

3. What people don't seem to realize is that this whole discussion (the whole topic, not this thread) sexualizes kids and calls on people to look at child avatars as if they are a sexualized commodity. It promotes the transactionalization of sex, which itself promotes sexual and gender based violence. This whole thing is very weird and a little icky, since this change is forcing people to look at kids as objects of sex. Once again, this is clearly not the intention, as usual, this is having the exact opposite effect because that's what happens when you hastily write bad policies.

This is probably a little philosophical for this thread, but I don't disagree. In fact, I started trying to write something kinda similar earlier but eventually gave up. The part about promoting objectification (and worse) is further than I took it—maybe I'm too prudish to go there—but I completely agree that the whole subject feels "weird and a little icky".

I don't fault the Lab for this, I think they're trying to respond to a real risk of truly icky things, things to which every responsible Trust and Safety department must respond.

And yet, painting the genital areas of child avatars shares some semiotics with rituals of pre-Enlightenment cultures. That it ends up part of the SL Child Avatar Policy subconsciously reflects primal obsession with prohibiting and transgressing. Note the color of the FAQ's sample modesty layer, selected from that subconscious palette.

 

[Monika Skydancer]

39 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

And yet, painting the genital areas of child avatars shares some semiotics with rituals of pre-Enlightenment cultures. That it ends up part of the SL Child Avatar Policy subconsciously reflects primal obsession with prohibiting and transgressing. Note the color of the FAQ's sample modesty layer, selected from that subconscious palette.

Yeah I really don't think LL are thinking too much about that kinda stuff. I'm gonna guess they're more focused on the whole nude kid avatars thing.

[HarrisonMcKenzie]

1 hour ago, Qie Niangao said:

I don't fault the Lab for this, I think they're trying to respond to a real risk of truly icky things, things to which every responsible Trust and Safety department must respond.

It's really a no win situation. They're trying to show that they are doing something. It's just that they seem to have fallen into a common trap where the something actually accomplishes nothing. Personally, I think they should have just enforced what they already had on the books, but then that doesn't have a "new thing" that can be easily pointed to.

[Starberry Passion]

12 hours ago, Kaia Sachin said:

I'm also wearing Avalon and I feel like people could definitely question whether or not I am over the age of 18 despite being 5'6" because I'm petite - which is why I've decided to wear modesty layers and comply with the new rules outlined in the updated TOS.

You look like an adult to me. I don't think you need to wear modesty layers, unless you want to.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Not sure where to post this really, but here's Pantera Polnocy's video of the Governance Users Group meeting.

 

[Blaise Glendevon]

My bad. I made this comment before I saw the moderator's ruling.

Edited May 9 by Blaise Glendevon

[Coffee Pancake]

3 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Not sure where to post this really, but here's Pantera Polnocy's video of the Governance Users Group meeting.

None of the opinionated from here bothered to show up, maybe they don't actually care.

[Arielle Popstar]

3 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

None of the opinionated from here bothered to show up, maybe they don't actually care.

Meh, you know i tried but it was full. Did you save a log of the chat?

[Scylla Rhiadra]

16 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

None of the opinionated from here bothered to show up, maybe they don't actually care.

"Proactive moderation," eh?

Also, Tommy admits he's "only human"! My world view is forever shattered. Next up: "The Great God Pan is dead!"

Edited May 9 by Scylla Rhiadra