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

[Ceka Cianci]

7 hours 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.

If you're referring to this part here

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.

The transparency part is not saying you can't use alpha layers to wear clothes.. It's saying the modesty layers can't be transparent or match the same tone as the skin and may not be removed.

If they are using an alpha layer or alpha cut for clothing, it's not going to show them naked..

They are pretty much saying make the modesty layer solid, not transparent in anyway, like sheer or fishnet or  clear so you can see the naked skin under it.

 

Edited May 9 by Ceka Cianci

[Starberry Passion]

I see that Coffee Pancake went there and jumped to Proactive Moderation meaning A.I. Proactive Moderation means that they're trying to prevent certain content from reaching public eyes.

Example: Adult content that shouldn't be able to be seen by a child, they want to prevent this. That means if it's rated Adult and you're underage, you won't be seeing it anytime soon.

In other words, they are talking about censorship.

Edited May 10 by Starberry Passion

[Codex Alpha]

Meeting  was full by 1:45, so most likely they couldn't get in

Edited May 10 by Codex Alpha

[MissSweetViolet]

1 hour ago, Coffee Pancake said:

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

I tried to get there but was it was full. I even logged on two hours before the start. x.x

[Arielle Popstar]

Reading the video log was faster then having had to sit through it all anyway so in retrospect it didn't bother me not getting in to hear the no-news.

[Starberry Passion]

Just now, Arielle Popstar said:

Reading the video log was faster then having had to sit through it all anyway so in retrospect it didn't bother me not getting in to hear the no-news.

I don't know why they didn't turn of V1 style, that way everyone would have their on box and header, separating them from one another.

[Silachan Rain]

Here's some food for thought/discussion as it was mentioned multiple times and yet skimmed over and not addressed by the lindens. Understandably, they had a lot of comments coming in at once, yet interestingly enough they chose some very...niche ones to respond to at some points and ignored others.

Alas, as someone who is in a child or teen avatar 99% of my time in SL, there's a few points of concern:

1) For a pre-pubescent aged child, what determines if the avatar is male, or female? Child bodies don't have meshed in genitalia. The Toddleedoo (TD) Baby, TD Kid, Bebe Youth, Bebe Baby, Tweeneedoo all do not have meshed on genitalia. There are no breasts, there are no nether-regions. They are essentially "ken doll" even when nude.  I am aware that the AVIL and Tweenster bodies have a hint of breasts, though they are minimal. I'm not familiar with other bodies.

I'd wager to say most if not ALL child skins do not display genitalia either. Breasts are undefined and as  "ken doll" as any other pre-pubescent child. Nether regions are airbrushed over and smooth with no details.

So what determines a male versus a female? Word of mouth? Clothing? Boys can wear dresses, so that's out.

2) What about nonbinary individuals? SL is all about portrayal. Many of us are nonbinary or transgender irl, and we portray that in our avatars. Myself included. As a nonbinary individual with a nonbinary avatar who doesn't wear any sort of defining sex attributes... Which rule do I follow? Male modesty rules? Female? (rhetorical question in my case as my personal preference is to cover up with undershirts, but food for thought anyway.)

3) Drawing attention to the breasts and lower regions of a minor-aged avatar by pointing out the requirement of modesty layers does the opposite of what LL wants it to do. By saying pre-pubescent children need to wear a modesty layer that serves as a bra, you're inherently implying that a child's bare chest is sexual enough to need covered. I have no problem with pubescent teenagers (those who wear avatars with some sort of breast growth etc) needing a modesty layer - that's largely clear.

4) Children go around without a shirt all the time in RL and it's not sexualized. By default, a child's body should not be seen as something that needs "covered up" or else it's "indecent". A toddler boy running around a beach shouldn't be immediately be looked at and thought that he needs to cover his top because it's indecent or sexuailzed. Yet, that's what we're doing here.

5) This in no way solves the problem of people utilizing these bodies and skins in inappropriate manners. Even if the person in question buys a complicit skin with baked on undergarments - who's to say that they won't just buy or create a bom layer that goes over top of it to detail genitals? Who's to say they won't just change skins for the moment, then change back, nonethewiser? (This also leads into how banning children avatars from adult rated sims is also redundant. NSFW content is allowed in Moderate sims when in private parcels. Considering it's already against the TOS, no one in their right mind is doing those things in public spaces, whether in adult or moderate regions.)

All in all, almost nothing was really clarified other than the onus falls onto the skin creators to create skins for children. And we have to comply, even if that means we have to buy a new skin.

 

[HarrisonMcKenzie]

1 hour ago, Coffee Pancake said:

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

I would have loved to go. Couldn't because of work.

1 hour ago, Ceka Cianci said:

If you're referring to this part here

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.

The transparency part is not saying you can't use alpha layers to wear clothes.. It's saying the modesty layers can't be transparent or match the same tone as the skin and may not be removed.

If they are using an alpha layer or alpha cut for clothing, it's not going to show them naked..

They are pretty much saying make the modesty layer solid, not transparent in anyway, like sheer or fishnet or  clear so you can see the naked skin under it.

Again, there's a difference between what you mean and the words you use. I know that's the spirit and intention of the rule. But as someone who works in policy enforcement and dispute resolution, that's not what's written. What is written is bad policy because they are saying that these pixels cannot be made transparent. Guess what makes those things transparent.

[Monika Skydancer]

1 hour ago, Silachan Rain said:

3) Drawing attention to the breasts and lower regions of a minor-aged avatar by pointing out the requirement of modesty layers does the opposite of what LL wants it to do.

Nope, it does exactly what LL wants it to do. LL wants to make it impossible to "accidentally" end up with a nude child avatar. From here on in, if your kid avi is naked you're deliberately violating TOS despite LL doing its best to stop you.

[Starberry Passion]

1 hour ago, Silachan Rain said:

 

2) What about nonbinary individuals? SL is all about portrayal. Many of us are nonbinary or transgender irl, and we portray that in our avatars. Myself included. As a nonbinary individual with a nonbinary avatar who doesn't wear any sort of defining sex attributes... Which rule do I follow? Male modesty rules? Female? (rhetorical question in my case as my personal preference is to cover up with undershirts, but food for thought anyway.)

 

[Silachan Rain]

25 minutes ago, Starberry Passion said:

 

That doesn't answer the question of "Which modesty type is a nonbinary presenting youth avatar supposed to wear to comply with the rule if they have separate criteria for females and males". I'm not blind, I read the whole thing and I was there for the meeting, too.

[Starberry Passion]

14 minutes ago, Silachan Rain said:

That doesn't answer the question of "Which modesty type is a nonbinary presenting youth avatar supposed to wear to comply with the rule if they have separate criteria for females and males". I'm not blind, I read the whole thing and I was there for the meeting, too.

You didn't say anything about youth in the question you asked in number 2 of your inquiry. Nor did you specify if it was just about youth or child avatars. If it's labeled as Female, you have to have modesty, if it's Male, you have to have modesty. Even if it's androgynous, if you can't tell the different you have to have modesty and most likely the female one because it's androgynous.

[Silachan Rain]

5 minutes ago, Starberry Passion said:

You didn't say anything about youth in the question you asked in number 2 of your inquiry. Nor did you specify if it was just about youth or child avatars. If it's labeled as Female, you have to have modesty, if it's Male, you have to have modesty. Even if it's androgynous, if you can't tell the different you have to have modesty and most likely the female one because it's androgynous.

Thought it was pretty obvious that the topic is of children avatars, and the rest of my points were around children avatars. Context clues point to this being about it too.

And you missed the point. Nonbinary doesn't mean androgynous. My avatar is neither male or female. I am neither male or female. I do not fit into "male" or "female" boxes - and the current ruling as stated doesn't make it clear what determines male vs female. Is it the shape setting? Because 99% of children avatars are going to be female-based. Is it clothing? Because a girl can wear suits or trunks or boxers, and a boy can wear skirts or dresses or other traditionally girl clothing.
These aren't questions that *we* can answer, because we aren't LL. These are questions that LL needs to think about and clarify before enforcing vague rules.

[Starberry Passion]

1 minute ago, Silachan Rain said:

Thought it was pretty obvious that the topic is of children avatars, and the rest of my points were around children avatars. Context clues point to this being about it too.

And you missed the point. Nonbinary doesn't mean androgynous. My avatar is neither male or female. I am neither male or female. I do not fit into "male" or "female" boxes - and the current ruling as stated doesn't make it clear what determines male vs female. Is it the shape setting? Because 99% of children avatars are going to be female-based. Is it clothing? Because a girl can wear suits or trunks or boxers, and a boy can wear skirts or dresses or other traditionally girl clothing.
These aren't questions that *we* can answer, because we aren't LL. These are questions that LL needs to think about and clarify before enforcing vague rules.

That doesn't matter atm. It's a child avatar to linden labs, if it looks female they're going to tell you to put a female modesty layer on, if it looks male, they're going to tell you to put a  male modesty layer on. It doesn't matter if you're neither male nor female, in the 3D world people look at how you present and rather you represent male or female, Masculine or Feminine. You can be an alien with no sexual organs, if the shape seems feminine then majority will see it as feminine. If they cannot tell, then what you wear will say if you're feminine or not.

[Zalificent Corvinus]

2 hours ago, Silachan Rain said:

For a pre-pubescent aged child, what determines if the avatar is male

There is a "gender" setting in the system shape, readable by lsl script., male shape, male AR Clickbait, female shape, female AR Clickbait.

Simple.

 

2 hours ago, Silachan Rain said:

What about nonbinary individuals?

The shape is still male or female. Non-binary female, wear a bra.

Simple.

 

2 hours ago, Silachan Rain said:

Drawing attention to the breasts and lower regions of a minor-aged avatar by pointing out the requirement of modesty layers does the opposite of what LL wants it to do

What they want to do is make life so difficult for you that you'll A) grow up into an Adult avatar, or B) sod off elsewhere and be somebody else's corporate PR problem or C) Give Governance an excuse.

 

2 hours ago, Silachan Rain said:

Children go around without a shirt all the time in RL

LL won't get sued if a REAL child walks around topless in FirstLife, so they don't give a tinkers curse what REAL children do in Firstlife, just what might get them sued for letting YOU do, in SecondLife.

 

 

Constantly overthinking ass-backwards from the wrong starting point in pathetic attempts to justify ignoring the ToS doesn't change the situation.

New ToS, Comply, Leave, or get BOOTED.

 

[Dorientje Woller]

3 hours ago, Starberry Passion said:

If they cannot tell, then what you wear will say if you're feminine or not.

If they cannot tell, maybe it's time to upgrade their screen or get some glasses.

[Coffee Pancake]

3 hours ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

The shape is still male or female. Non-binary female, wear a bra.

Simple

Not for long (and that's not how nonbinary works in any case).

https://feedback.secondlife.com/feature-requests/p/nonbinary-avatar-shape-and-just-more-dynamic-base-avatar-shape-settings

[elleevelyn]

On 5/6/2024 at 3:11 PM, Aya Sweetheart said:

Maitreya just needs to add a disclaimer "for adult avatar use only" and if someone misuses the product, that's on the user.

this might be a step to far I think

i don't think any creator should have to say in their advertising what something they make is not

what creators should say is what their product is. Like: this product is child avatar compliant.  Nobody should have to say in their advert: This product is not child avatar compliant

[Ceka Cianci]

7 hours ago, HarrisonMcKenzie said:

I would have loved to go. Couldn't because of work.

Again, there's a difference between what you mean and the words you use. I know that's the spirit and intention of the rule. But as someone who works in policy enforcement and dispute resolution, that's not what's written. What is written is bad policy because they are saying that these pixels cannot be made transparent. Guess what makes those things transparent.

A graphics program makes those layers transparent or not , like photoshop or gimp. One example is, taking a skin that may already be on the market back into the graphics program and adding a layer to it from the graphics program and baking it into the skin.

That line is specifically to Child avatar content creators.

"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."

Now what makes a modestly layer baked into a skin transparent on the skin that it is baked into?

Nothing, because it is baked into the skin..

An alpha layer or alpha cut separate from the skin.. Say from someones inventory or that they made themselves and uploaded into SL, isn't  making the modestly layer transparent, it's making the avatar transparent.

There is no way to make the modesty layer itself transparent, without breaking the rules.

 

Edited May 10 by Ceka Cianci

[Dorientje Woller]

7 hours ago, Starberry Passion said:

In other words, they are talking about censorship.

No ... not censorship, but protecting our minors against bad influences.

[Ceka Cianci]

9 hours ago, Coffee Pancake said:

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

Or have jobs, like me..Have to pay for SL somehow.. hehehe

[Arielle Popstar]

1 hour ago, Dorientje Woller said:

No ... not censorship, but protecting our minors against bad influences.

No...not bad influences but protecting that class of avatars who feel squeamish at the sight of a child avatar.

[Ceka Cianci]

2 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

No...not bad influences but protecting that class of avatars who feel squeamish at the sight of a child avatar.

Honestly, the onyl thing that ever really bothered me, was if they were chatting to me and being immerssed at the same time.. kind of like I'm part of the RP or something, which I'm not..

But that's not just with child avatars.. That's pretty much anyone that tried to pull me into their RP from the start..

It's one thing if I'm exploring and venture into a sim that is made for those kinds of RP's.. But if you see me shopping  at an event or a store.. That kind of bugs me and most times, I won't answer back.

Other than that, I'm always  looking at other avatars just to see how creative they got with them.

[Arielle Popstar]

2 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

Honestly, the onyl thing that ever really bothered me, was if they were chatting to me and being immerssed at the same time.. kind of like I'm part of the RP or something, which I'm not..

But that's not just with child avatars.. That's pretty much anyone that tried to pull me into their RP from the start..

It's one thing if I'm exploring and venture into a sim that is made for those kinds of RP's.. But if you see me shopping  at an event or a store.. That kind of bugs me and most times, I won't answer back.

Other than that, I'm always  looking at other avatars just to see how creative they got with them.

I so rarely see what I define as a child avatar (pre-pubescent) that I barely even think about them except now that anything presenting as under 18 is being lumped together in that category. The few times I have run into them, I too was being immersed into their roleplay but that is not really any different then those who RP something else like a furry or a plant of even Gor style RP. To me the challenge is just rolling along with whatever someone else's RP is though if it is something I'm not into, it won't be for long and I'll make my excuses and move on.

[Sydelle Zanzibar]

20 hours ago, HarrisonMcKenzie said:

Just to stir the hornet's nest a little more, there are some fun little concerns I've been meaning to point out.

1. To quote the "Clarification of policy" document, "Being fully nude. 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."

As written, this means that all child avatars must be nude at all times. If the modesty layer cannot be transparent, that means you cannot alpha that part of your body out in order to wear clothing. It's really fun working in policy enforcement because I get paid to point things like this out. Clearly, that's not the intention here, but that is, in fact, what is written. Since I can't make this modesty layer transparent via an alpha, I am now required to run around in public in only my underwear.

At first, I wondered if they meant "alpha" too. but after the meeting it's pretty clear its only about the skin here.  It means when a skin maker is in photoshop adding a underwear/modesty layer to the skin, you can't make the underwear layer mostly transparent so that you can see what's under the underwear, I would assume this also means can't be like lace, that would have lots of holes.