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

[Rowan Amore]

14 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

If they had to spell it out in crayon, provide pictures for every instance, every 'what if'.. it would first be impossible, and all it would do is encourage some forumers to further question and find ways to skirt the rules, or cause confusion, etc.

Again with the condescension but ok.  No one is attempting to skirt the rules in this discussion.  At all.  But, yes.  It leaves it up to our own discretion.  What I think looks too young may not be what you think looks too young or @Fluffy Sharkfinthinks looks too young or @Scylla Rhiadrathinks looks too young.  See the problem?

You just keep saying, well anyone should know what an underage avatar looks like when the fact is, no one does for sure.

Anyway, perhaps you're not reading nor understanding what we're all saying or you're just not out there to see what we're saying.  

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 minute ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

For what it's worth, which is most likely not much since it's just my personal interpretation, I'd say that none of those count in terms of content produced for child avatars going forward, and any existing content designed for child avatars would not be permissible unless coupled with a TOS compliant body (if you wear a skin without a modesty layer you must wear body with modesty layer and vice versa).

This would be more-or-less my interpretation as well. The problem is, as you say, it's just a "personal interpretation."

2 minutes ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

As others have pointed out this isn't a completely fool proof solution and I'm sure LL are aware of the ways in which people may try to bypass the restrictions, so I suspect the spirit of these new rules is basically "Don't get naked if you look underage, ever! And do everything within your power to ensure that your avatar can't accidentally appear naked to others!"

Again, yeah. But were I RPing a child avatar, I'm not sure I'd be entirely comfortable with following the "spirit" of these rules, when a misstep has such dire consequences.

Honestly, to be accused of a*eplay, yet alone disciplined for it, would pretty much gut me, emotionally. Thank god I merely represent as an unbelievably glamorous and beautiful 20-something!

[Dyna Mole]

Hi gang --

Let me drop a reminder into the thread.  The topic that the OP introduced in the first post was framed as a set of questions:

On 5/5/2024 at 3:01 PM, MissSweetViolet said:

Does the layer need to be built into the body, will a layer built into an avatar skin be good enough, can BoM underwear be counted as compiling?

Will there be a difference regarding the gender of the avatar?

Does the age the avatar in question dictate what the layer should look like? [I'd argue it should since a teen vs a 5 year is not the same, especially in regard to gender, especially at older ages.]

Do non human avatars need a layer too?

The majority of mainstream avatars for kids are BoM just like adult bodies, so how do all the BoM layers [skins, tattoos, clothing, etc] fall into this?

What about needing to alpha for mesh clothing? Just like adults, kid clothing doesn't always fit right and needs an alpha layer or alpha from the hud, is using an alpha layer for this going to make any kid avatar trying to get mesh clothing to fit non compliant since you said alpha was not good enough? How does this work?

So, if conversation starts to wander away from a discussion of what a modesty layer is or how it works, you're off topic. That's not to say that questions about the age of an avatar, gender identity, and other things aren't interesting. They have been debated in a previous thread, though, and are not what this thread is about.

[Anna Salyx]

6 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

 What I think looks too young may not be what you think looks too young or @Fluffy Sharkfinthinks looks too young or @Scylla Rhiadrathinks looks too young.  S

Also says what a reasonable person would interpret.  So.... which of the four of you is the "reasonable" person?  (I know it ain't me, I far from reasonable... )

(( edit add: sorry Dyna, was typing my sillyness out as you dropped your note.  I'll behave.))

Edited May 8 by Anna Salyx

[Arielle Popstar]

2 minutes ago, Dyna Mole said:

Hi gang --

Let me drop a reminder into the thread.  The topic that the OP introduced in the first post was framed as a set of questions:

So, if conversation starts to wander away from a discussion of what a modesty layer is or how it works, you're off topic. That's not to say that questions about the age of an avatar, gender identity, and other things aren't interesting. They have been debated in a previous thread, though, and are not what this thread is about.

That topic was locked without some insight or clarification being given leaving residents in limbo, Small wonder the questions continue.

[Rowan Amore]

16 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

If you want to have a one-on-one discussion, why do you post in a public forum built for community discussion, rather than pursue it in a DM where you can't be "interrupted."

You do understand what a "forum" is, and how it works, no?

You've just asked me not to, as it appears that if I do, I am interrupting?

And I am responding to your comments in the context of the OP for this thread. Crazy eh?

(I thought you were trying to be "civil" in this discussion?)

Maybe you're supposed to raise your hand?

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 hour ago, Rowan Amore said:

Maybe you're supposed to raise your hand?

If we're RPing a classroom here, I'd really better pay more attention to what I'm wearing!

Edited May 9 by Scylla Rhiadra
Curse you, autocorrect!

[Fluffy Sharkfin]

On 5/5/2024 at 9:01 PM, MissSweetViolet said:

Does the layer need to be built into the body, will a layer built into an avatar skin be good enough, can BoM underwear be counted as compiling?

...

The majority of mainstream avatars for kids are BoM just like adult bodies, so how do all the BoM layers [skins, tattoos, clothing, etc] fall into this?

What about needing to alpha for mesh clothing? Just like adults, kid clothing doesn't always fit right and needs an alpha layer or alpha from the hud, is using an alpha layer for this going to make any kid avatar trying to get mesh clothing to fit non compliant since you said alpha was not good enough? How does this work?

Since these three questions are somewhat related I guess my interpretation of the current TOS would be that 

1: BoM underwear won't be acceptable unless used on a skin/body combination that contains a modesty layer.

2: If there's a skin/body with no modesty layer underneath it and the layers covering it are removable, it's not TOS compliant.

3: Again, if the body/skin that you're alphaing out doesn't have a modesty layer then, since the alpha is removable, you're not technically complying with the TOS.  As to how rigidly they intend to apply this particular rule, it's probably best to err on the side of caution unless they offer further clarification. I'm still inclined to believe that as long as you do everything within reason to remain clothed and aren't participating in any sort of adult behaviour then they'd take that into account, but I wouldn't exactly be willing to bet my account on it.

ETA: Not wanting to diminish the importance of the other three points which were..

On 5/5/2024 at 9:01 PM, MissSweetViolet said:

Will there be a difference regarding the gender of the avatar?

Does the age the avatar in question dictate what the layer should look like? [I'd argue it should since a teen vs a 5 year is not the same, especially in regard to gender, especially at older ages.]

Do non human avatars need a layer too?

...it's just that these three questions seem more like things only LL can really clarify, rather than being interpretations of the technical requirements.

Edited May 8 by Fluffy Sharkfin

[CaerolleClaudel]

35 minutes ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

I sympathise and did not mean to imply that the subject was not relevant, just that it really wasn't something that could be discussed in this thread.

I'm pretty much 100% certain that none of our personal opinions expressed in this thread are going to translate into future LL policy, or have any impact on the actions of the vast majority of land owners, etc. in SL so I doubt you have anything to be concerned about as far as in-world repercussions to this thread.

Yes, that is part of why I never looked at the other thread, because I felt sure that whatever we thought would have no bearing on what the Lindens decided. I started into this one because I agreed with the OP. I had no intentions of actively participating until that one post.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

1 hour ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

[Bolding mine]

For what it's worth, which is most likely not much since it's just my personal interpretation, I'd say that none of those count in terms of content produced for child avatars going forward, and any existing content designed for child avatars would not be permissible unless coupled with a TOS compliant body (if you wear a skin without a modesty layer you must wear body with modesty layer and vice versa).

As others have pointed out this isn't a completely fool proof solution and I'm sure LL are aware of the ways in which people may try to bypass the restrictions, so I suspect the spirit of these new rules is basically "Don't get naked if you look underage, ever! And do everything within your power to ensure that your avatar can't accidentally appear naked to others!"

Well I don't think I look underage, but the person standing beside me might think I do, and OMG THAT TEENAGER JUST GOT NAKED AR  AR AR

[Fluffy Sharkfin]

1 minute ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

Well I don't think I look underage, but the person standing beside me might think I do, and OMG THAT TEENAGER JUST GOT NAKED AR  AR AR

Okay, but we're kind of over that topic since we're meant to be sticking to the points/questions raised in the OP and a discussion about what a modesty layer is and how it works.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

well, if the only allowed topic for discussion in this thread  is "what is a modesty layer and how does it work?", that's kinda boring, so I'm outta here. See ya on another thread 😂

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 hour ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

I'm still inclined to believe that as long as you do everything within reason to remain clothed and aren't participating in any sort of adult behaviour then they'd take that into account, but I wouldn't exactly be willing to bet my account on it.

And of course this is the thing.

I very much doubt there are going to be roaming AR parties hunting down child avatars, derendering their clothing, and trying to determine what is underneath. AND if that child avatar is wearing BOM underclothes, pants and a top, etc., derendering their clothes might not reveal to someone who doesn't have Linden God powers whether or not their skins or mesh bodies beneath those are compliant. The same is true if the pelvis and (for females) chest and back are alphaed out.

Effectively, in 90% of cases, I doubt that the average resident is going to be able to make that kind of determination.

But would one want to take that chance?

[Fluffy Sharkfin]

2 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Effectively, in 90% of cases, I doubt that the average resident is going to be able to make that kind of determination.

But would one want to take that chance?

Well yes, that is indeed "the thing".

That's where we really have to rely on LL to stick to their word and consider all the other factors besides avatar appearance.  As they say in the FAQ a breach of TOS doesn't necessarily mean instant termination of your account, hopefully warnings will be issued and attempts at "re-education" will be made rather than handing out insta-bans in cases where accidental infractions like wardrobe malfunctions occur.

Unfortunately, since all the other factors LL may consider aren't related to "what modesty layers are and how they work" (since they are, by definition, "other factors") we can't really discuss them here in this thread without going off topic. 😅

[Qie Niangao]

1 hour ago, Dyna Mole said:

Hi gang --

Let me drop a reminder into the thread.  The topic that the OP introduced in the first post was framed as a set of questions:

Does the layer need to be built into the body, will a layer built into an avatar skin be good enough, can BoM underwear be counted as compiling?

Will there be a difference regarding the gender of the avatar?

Does the age the avatar in question dictate what the layer should look like? [I'd argue it should since a teen vs a 5 year is not the same, especially in regard to gender, especially at older ages.]

Do non human avatars need a layer too?

The majority of mainstream avatars for kids are BoM just like adult bodies, so how do all the BoM layers [skins, tattoos, clothing, etc] fall into this?

What about needing to alpha for mesh clothing? Just like adults, kid clothing doesn't always fit right and needs an alpha layer or alpha from the hud, is using an alpha layer for this going to make any kid avatar trying to get mesh clothing to fit non compliant since you said alpha was not good enough? How does this work?

So, if conversation starts to wander away from a discussion of what a modesty layer is or how it works, you're off topic. That's not to say that questions about the age of an avatar, gender identity, and other things aren't interesting. They have been debated in a previous thread, though, and are not what this thread is about.

Dyna, is there some way you could ask Tommy or otherwise help ensure those questions get answered directly somewhere, perhaps at the Governance user group tomorrow? If it helps, there are a few related ones Scylla and I tried to formulate a few pages back.

Unless decision makers are still gathering feedback from posts on this thread, it's all really a question of policy clarification, and resolving apparent conflict between the Policy and FAQ. (Is the modesty layer a property of "skins or bodies" as in the Policy, or can existing bodies not be used at all, as in the FAQ, even with compliant skins?)

If it's productive, we can keep expressing opinions here about what interpretations make sense to us individually, but if the policy is actually complete now, if Governance knows what they'll actually be enforcing on June 30th, it's clear from these threads that it's not yet clear to residents.

[Kaia Sachin]

I did assume that the modesty layer requirement would be identical to the BOM layers we are already familiar with. If this assumption turns out to be incorrect, I hope that creators will make body skins with modesty layers for the most popular adult bodies as well, since many people who roleplay younger ages use those bodies rather than the ones made specifically for those roleplaying that age group.

[Dyna Mole]

35 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

Dyna, is there some way you could ask Tommy or otherwise help ensure those questions get answered directly somewhere, perhaps at the Governance user group tomorrow?

Tommy has read every post in the large thread and has been keeping up with other threads like this one that debate the policy. You can be fairly sure that he will come to tomorrow's meeting expecting people to raise the core issues. 

[brodiac90]

9 minutes ago, Dyna Mole said:

Tommy has read every post in the large thread and has been keeping up with other threads like this one that debate the policy. You can be fairly sure that he will come to tomorrow's meeting expecting people to raise the core issues. 

When and where is the meeting?

[Coffee Pancake]

38 minutes ago, brodiac90 said:

When and where is the meeting?

Goverance User Group
WhenThu, May 9, 2pm – 3pm
DescriptionDiscussion of topics relating to safety and security in Second Life. Please note this does not include the discussion of Reports anyone has filed, the outcome of investigations, or potential actions taken on abuse, DMCA or copywrite issues.

Normal schedule is to meet every 2nd Thursday from 2:00pm - 3:00pm PT

Location: https://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Linden Estate Services4/228/16/28 - Linden Estate Services4 (228,16,28)

[Vanity Fair]

On 5/5/2024 at 7:32 PM, Coffee Pancake said:

I checked the female rebirth and it's out ... it really is a walking ToS violation.

It's a child body that can be pushed to a slender adult via different shapes. only the shape changes, the mesh does not.

It has adult bits as part of the mesh. All camel toe all the time, with a hud button to add even more detail.

No one should be wearing this body at all right now - It breaks ToS out of the box.

Yeah, it’s going to be interesting to see how Rebirth handles this. As I said on the other thread, the makers must be tearing their hair out about all this.  

[brodiac90]

10 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

Goverance User Group
WhenThu, May 9, 2pm – 3pm
DescriptionDiscussion of topics relating to safety and security in Second Life. Please note this does not include the discussion of Reports anyone has filed, the outcome of investigations, or potential actions taken on abuse, DMCA or copywrite issues.

Normal schedule is to meet every 2nd Thursday from 2:00pm - 3:00pm PT

Location: https://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Linden Estate Services4/228/16/28 - Linden Estate Services4 (228,16,28)

Thank you, is there an in world group or is that just the title of the assembly? Also, I'm SLT+8, what time is PT?

[Scylla Rhiadra]

56 minutes ago, brodiac90 said:

Thank you, is there an in world group or is that just the title of the assembly? Also, I'm SLT+8, what time is PT?

"Group" is just what they call these meetings. Anyone can attend; there's no SL group to join.

PT (Pacific Time) is SLT; they are the same.

I'd like to go myself, but I expect this to be packed with stakeholders, and I don't want to take up a spot that should be reserved for someone with a child avi. Hopefully @Qie Niangao will be there though. And I can catch Pantera's video of it (assuming there is one; there almost invariably is) and Inara's rundown.

[elleevelyn]

On 5/7/2024 at 11:52 AM, Persephone Emerald said:

So, does the "modesty layer" rule only apply to creators of bodies and skins marketed for child avatars? And if so, is this restriction really just for PR optics?

pretty much yes. Is not just for PR tho, is about the platform owner making a reasonable effort to comply with RL legals in the world markets where they operate

is pretty simple tho really.  We can't make avatar accessories and sell them as child avatar accessories when they are non-compliant

ps as others have mentioned already, that a person may obtain non-compliant accessories and apply them to their child avatar just because they can do this technically doesn't make it an issue for anyone other than that person

pps. For sure some avatar accessory makers are going to have to look at their previous marketing promotion/presentation practices but that's about it really. Some skin makers will make underwear compliant child avatar skins, and others will not, dropping out of promoting their wares as suitable for child avatars

 

Edited May 9 by elleevelyn
typs

[Arielle Popstar]

4 hours ago, Codex Alpha said:

People are just having fun making this more difficult than it is, mainly out of complete stubbornness, not reading the policy or TOS, and continuing to present these most exceptional scenarios that LL nor anyone else is going to even be able to spell out, as it would be even more tedious - and even more lawyering would happen.

Like someone mentioned before, for those who use child avatars in a normal way are not going to have problems.

People all interpret the policies and the  ToS through their own prejudices and biases, especially when they don't think they have any and are in denial of the ones they do have. As a clear example, your response to me earlier today in another thread when I asked for an example of the modesty patch was to show me your version, which by your labeling of it strongly hinted at what you thought of the models, which struck me as somewhat discrimatory and making your interpretation of them as suspect

 

You no doubt thought it funny and in another context I might have thought the same but when it comes to residents having to use their own discretion for deciding whether someone was worthy of being reported for being a ToS non compliant avatar,  I personally find your apparent bias worrying, regardless of how well you think you understand the ToS.

Is it possible that you are being stubborn yourself in accepting that there are non conforming gender types which are perfectly acceptable and a have a right to be here under the ToS but might not conform to the classical definitions of male or female avatars?

 

[MissSweetViolet]

10 hours ago, Blush Bravin said:

Yep, I agree. It's certainly possible, though I think by 50 no matter how small your chest might be you're gonna see more sag.

Ah, I really didn't have any idea it was a promo photo. To me it looks very much like they took the same body shape, minus boob size, and just shortened the avatar to indicate age, which I think is completely erroneous. Just my opinion.

Based off some things I've heard, that is basically what the rebirth body does.

9 hours ago, Dorientje Woller said:

Because it's the only brand name that I see popping up in the conversation.

Sorry, was not my intent to imply I was just referring to  Maitreya, it just the only adult body I prefer to use when using an adult avatar, so it was the only one I had and still the only one I use, and it happened to have the most of the type I clothing I needed back when I made that avatar.

9 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

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?

This is pretty much my main remaining questions along with non human, since the layer appearance has been addressed.

8 hours 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.)

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.

Yes, I hope they answer about if it needs to built in or a if skin is sufficient. The built in term is confusing, since I don't consider a skin built in.

8 hours ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

As compelling as the other thread was it was also a bloated, sprawling behemoth which I imagine gave the poor mods and Lindens that had to read it a doozy of a headache.

Personally I think, In the spirit of not inflicting further pain and suffering (and potentially PTSD) on the poor mods, it would be nice if we tried to keep this thread a lot smaller, less contentious and possibly even productive by following the suggestion  @Qie Niangao put forward...

Attempting to condense our concerns down into some succinct and pertinent questions is probably the only reliable way to allay our concerns.

That was why I tried to get as many questions as I could remember in my first post, so at least LL could see them easier. Since I feared the thread taking the turn of the other one.

If I missed any people are concerned over, please post them before it grows too large. XD [half sarcasm half serious after how the other thread was].

Edited May 9 by MissSweetViolet
Spelling corrections.