Discuss or Comments about Child, Adult, Can't Tell Thread

[Aya Sweetheart]

2 minutes ago, Blaise Glendevon said:

From your first link:

 

a minor is a child... what do you think it means? 

Minors are Children.  Children are Minors.

[Arielle Popstar]

10 minutes ago, PJBear Bitey said:

As I appear to be the only one to click on Thanks, I figured I'd say something in this thread for the below image. I went with Thanks, 18+, because of the laugh lines ... and basically because of the laugh lines. The tattoo pushed things in the 18+ direction, but under 18 year old's can have a tattoo.  

 

6 minutes ago, PJBear Bitey said:

Similarly, I clicked on Thanks on Rowan's woman with pigtail image, because of the very elaborate neck and upper body tattoo. Which seemed more extensive than someone under 18 would get, though I can be wrong on that count. Also, something about the eyes make me think she has seen many, unfortunately, sad things in her life. 

It is interesting to me how we individually look at different characteristics of an avatar to date their age. That has really been hitting home to me over the past couple days.

[Blaise Glendevon]

Just now, Aya Sweetheart said:

a minor is a child... what do you think it means? 

Minors are Children.  Children are Minors.

Yes. In the language of the law of the United States, to which Linden Labs is beholden, everyone under the age of 18 is a child. Codex Alpha is trying to confuse the issue by making this conversation about avatars that very clearly depict the kinds of children we'd call child-like. Toddler through Middle School. But even teenagers who are under the age of 18, or fictionalized depictions thereof, apply under this policy. 

[Hymn Celestia]

14 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

So, I posted a pic of an avatar I designed to look like a teen -- but most people think she looks 18+

I thought 18 on the nose; so was forced to thank it.  18 to me looks youthful but is old enough to pass.  When I see someone looking youthful but somehow old enough to pass, they get the thanks.  Tame, brushed hair; a thoughtful and nuanced political opinion; jewelry that isn't candy; evidence of literacy... something or other will be the tell. 

[Love Zhaoying]

58 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

1 hour ago, Blush Bravin said:

Physical appearance in females post puberty and very early adulthood is tricky. Very tricky. So that's what I mean by based on physical appearance alone.  So mannerisms, perhaps clothing preferences, topics of interest, etc .. can be more of an indicator for age in the particular age range for women. So that's what I meant. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear.

So: I was judging based on the "overall look".

Even if we take away "choice of clothing", that still includes choice of hairstyle, choice of makeup, expression, etc.

Does that sound fair?  Because, so far as I understand - the big difference between many avatars is "just the skin" (which is similar to "makeup" from some perspectives").

So for some avatars, I was GREATLY influenced by the hairstyle - but not how you may think.  A much longer, fuller hairstyle would generally make me think "older" (definitely not a child, who can't often rock that look realistically); similarly, some "short" hairstyles are mostly common to women "above a certain age" (certain types of "bobs" is the closest I can say without pointing out "whose" picture I mean).

For some avatars, I was influenced by a combination of their "pose" - do they appear confident, poised, etc. Or, more..unsure, even possibly "vacant"? 

All of these choices are "conscious".  

I think Rowan gave an excellent example where some (me? maybe) would judge her example avatar as younger mostly on the clothing choice.  

So, which of these count for "physical appearance"?  After I see your reply, I'll go check your first picture again and try to write an answer that is more than "duh, looks young to me" lol!!

 

Ok @Blush Bravin, finally checking your first pic for "why I responded how I did".  I still do not quite understand, is it "ok" that I used all the criteria above - or was it the intent for us to "ignore everything but the body shape, skin, etc." (not clothing, hair, pose..)? 🙂

Here are the pictures in question:

7 hours ago, Blush Bravin said:

Here's why I judged you as "possibly under 18":

1. Face. As several said, the eyes are drawn to the face.

Your face is very young-looking and 'flawless' in a specific way that makes me thing "young" when I look at it "out of context" with anything else in the picture. This is a little more evident in the second picture, where your face is more closeup. (I almost thought it wasn't in shadow in the second pic, but yes it is.)

2. Hairstyle - not really one way or the other. It's not exactly the "very young looking pigtails" that I brought up earlier (even if it IS pigtails), however it is a "youthful" way to "updo" hair.   Who knows, maybe my eyes saw that hair and thought, "YOUNG".  

It's not hair you'd expect to see on someone in the 1950's, or someone in their 50's.  Have you seen all the web articles / videos pointing out that people "looked older" back in the 1950's partly because we associate the hairstyles they used with "an older look"?  Your hair ain't that!

3. Makeup - You do NOT have much obvious makeup on; so to my untrained eye, that looks more "realistically young".  Whereas, on some young people they wear makeup to look older, and on some older people they wear makeup because "they are expected to" (in order to meet some "beauty standards") - because your face shines with a youthful beauty WITHOUT a lot of "makeup", that gives it the feeling of "actual youth".

4. Clothing - Whereas jeans are pretty universal, those are almost "bell bottoms", favored more by today's youth. But your "halter top" (I'll call it that) is DEFINITELY a style mostly favored by younger women.  In the 1970's, women would have worn that top whether or not they are "sagging"; you aren't sagging!

I also spent some time with "hippy friends" in the mid-90's, the women would wear similar tops. They were in their very early 20's.

5. Pose / Body stance.  Now, this isn't exactly fair, as not everyone intentionally chooses a pose to reflect something as subtle / non-subtle as age.  But I see your pose / stance as somewhat generic or ambiguous, so it doesn't really contribute to anything I would think.

6. Tattoos - Very simple small tattoos that evoke a "simpler period"; the type of tattoos I'd expect to see more on a young person.  (I almost missed this altogether, so it's not that big a deal.)

7. Pose / Gaze - You are looking directly at the camera - apparently without any specific facial animation. 

Some people, like @Scylla Rhiadra, often wear some almost "trademark" facial animation (Scylla often has a 'slight grin').  Your lack of that, combined with your other facial attributes - to me, makes your face look more "open and youthful", especially as you gaze "straight on" at the camera.

So, "under 18"? Now that I've gone through it all, I'd say.. "maybe 18-19"!

See? That was worth it! I hope you were able to get through my explanation.

Looking forward to your feedback!

Thanks,

Love

 

[Aya Sweetheart]

1 minute ago, Hymn Celestia said:

I thought 18 on the nose; so was forced to thank it.  18 to me looks youthful but is old enough to pass.  When I see someone looking youthful but somehow old enough to pass, they get the thanks.  Tame, brushed hair; a thoughtful and nuanced political opinion; jewelry that isn't candy; evidence of literacy... something or other will be the tell. 

I love my candy jewelry and I'm 22!!   😢

[Zalificent Corvinus]

26 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

No, they're actually serious and posting their maturely developed avatars worried that they look like children.

No, I'm actually poking fun at the whole thread, hence the "Bride of Dr. Zalistein's Monster" and the "Z4-L1 Pizza Delivery Droid".

But somebody would need an ACTUAL sense of humour to spot that.

[PJBear Bitey]

20 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

Ah. Progeria.  Image appears to depict young women with a child-like appearance. But the age of the photo - the age of the creation of the avatars (pre-mesh), and clothing & hair (some) having flexi, indicates that this image might be from around 2012. And if they still look like this in 2024, then they've aged very very slowly. They are adults in the bodies of young women. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progeria

The attached image depicts two young men. Both are aged 19. One has Progeria.  And does not look 19. 

[Codex Alpha]

18 minutes ago, Blaise Glendevon said:

Yes. In the language of the law of the United States, to which Linden Labs is beholden, everyone under the age of 18 is a child. Codex Alpha is trying to confuse the issue by making this conversation about avatars that very clearly depict the kinds of children we'd call child-like. Toddler through Middle School. But even teenagers who are under the age of 18, or fictionalized depictions thereof, apply under this policy. 

Not to be back and forth, but it is my opinion that it is  you and others who are confusing the issue by showing pictures of maturely developed females for the most part, who don't qualify as 'child-like' for the most part.. I didnt see any avatars with lollipops, teddy bears, and Hello Kitty blankets... All your edge cases are ridiculous. LL isn't coming after you.

It's going to be clear cut cases where all of us can say "Oh yeah, that is a child!". But yeah keep 'interpreting' and 'lawyering' all the words.

If you read the TOS and Policy in their entirety, it's all in there.

In some cases there may be an element of subjectivity as to whether an avatar (or other image) appears to be a minor. Objective factors which will be used to decide include whether an avatar has childlike facial features, is child-sized, has clothing or accessories generally associated with children, and whether, based on the circumstances, an avatar is speaking or acting like a child ("My Mommy says...").

Edited May 9 by Codex Alpha

[Love Zhaoying]

4 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

No, I'm actually poking fun at the whole thread, hence the "Bride of Dr. Zalistein's Monster" and the "Z4-L1 Pizza Delivery Droid".

But somebody would need an ACTUAL sense of humour to spot that.

I don't get it, but maybe I'd get a "THX-1138" reference, because I'm old and a nerd.

Oh! You posted a pic over there? I'll go check. Thanks!

[Scylla Rhiadra]

2 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

"Bride of Dr. Zalistein's Monster"

I was going to to query you on this . . .

How "old" is the oldest cadaverous "bit" that you used to make that? If the head is from the grave of a 17 year old, we may have problems!

[Rowan Amore]

2 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

LL isn't coming after you.

Most people.aren't worried about LL.coming after them but whether others may see them as looking too young for Adult regions.

 

3 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

but it is my opinion

Which really doesn't mean much...just sayin'.

[Blaise Glendevon]

Just now, Codex Alpha said:

I didnt see any avatars with lollipops, teddy bears, and Hello Kitty blankets

I wouldn't expect to. If I saw those things on an otherwise mature looking avatar, I'd assume they were depicting women above the age of majority engaging in CG/L dynamics in a consensual kink relationship. 

You've gone all the wrong way around here. Bodies are a terrible way of determining whether a person (usually an AFAB person, in this conversation) is a legal adult under the standards of the laws LL is governed by. Which is why we're analyzing faces so intently and looking for other context clues.

[Zalificent Corvinus]

2 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

I didnt see any avatars with lollipops

You didn't look very hard, my last pic in that thread has a lolipop.

And she's wearing braided pigtails.

 

 

 

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I was going to to query you on this . . .

How "old" is the oldest cadaverous "bit" that you used to make that? If the head is from the grave of a 17 year old, we may have problems!

I figured her pieces are from Abby.

 

[Bree Giffen]

8 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Ok @Blush Bravin, finally checking your first pic for "why I responded how I did".  I still do not quite understand, is it "ok" that I used all the criteria above - or was it the intent for us to "ignore everything but the body shape, skin, etc." (not clothing, hair, pose..)? 🙂

I had marked it a under 18 as well. For very much the same reasons as Love, I had gut feeling she was under age. In addition, she has a big head which makes her body about 6 heads high and that felt child-like too. Just a coincidental grouping of under age qualities for that one example. 

[Chery Amore]

Hey @Blush Bravin I just wanted to ask did you mean this sentence in your Thread over there?

"I thought it would be fun to have a thread that asks the question, ' Does this avatar look like a child, adult, or can't tell based on physical appearance alone."

Or did I misread and you meant to say I think my avatar is completely skirting the edge? Can you rate me because of that?

Edited May 9 by Chery Amore

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Bree Giffen said:

15 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Ok @Blush Bravin, finally checking your first pic for "why I responded how I did".  I still do not quite understand, is it "ok" that I used all the criteria above - or was it the intent for us to "ignore everything but the body shape, skin, etc." (not clothing, hair, pose..)? 🙂

I had marked it a under 18 as well. For very much the same reasons as Love, I had gut feeling she was under age. In addition, she has a big head which makes her body about 6 heads high and that felt child-like too. Just a coincidental grouping of under age qualities for that one example. 

Thanks!

I had to intentionally think through every aspect to finally realize, "Ok, 18-19"!   Which really can be "edge" territory. 

I missed the "big head"!  Good catch.

[Rolig Loon]

6 minutes ago, Aya Sweetheart said:

a minor is a child... what do you think it means? 

Minors are Children.  Children are Minors.

That's quite true, but it's quibbling and misses the point that this thread and the one on Avatars is focused on.  As I said a short while ago, "The few who posted as children are no real challenge, but as we saw in the previous thread, there's a lot of uncertainty in people's minds when avs might be in the 13 - 20 range, almost always if they are women." Toddlers and pre-teens are not a problem. However, it's impossible to draw a hard line, using objective criteria, that can tell you whether the avatar you are looking at is a 14-18 year old mature-looking girl or a 19-22 year old young-looking woman.  We and Governance are left making judgments using gut feelings, experience, biases, and a flock of situational variables.  

The dilemma is that some people don't trust Governance to make reasonable judgements in the face of that uncertainty, so they are hoping for a few hard lines. ("She's too short!" "She has big boobs!" "She has a ponytail!" )  That's just not going to work.

And yet .... the reassuring result of Blush Bravin's thread so far is that most of us can make reasonable judgments without hard line criteria. There are not many votes on any photo that amount to, "I'd AR this person and let Governance decide". I find that encouraging and I have enough trust in Governance, personally, that I am confident their judgement is at least as good as ours.  We're not going to have anywhere near as many young women avatars caught by the policy as many people fear.

 

 

[Zalificent Corvinus]

2 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

There are not many votes on any photo that amount to, "I'd AR this person and let Governance decide".

Except for the poor Z4-L1 pizza delivery droid.

Y'all gonna have to collect your pizza from now on.

 

[Blaise Glendevon]

Just now, Zalificent Corvinus said:

Except for the poor Z4-L1 pizza delivery droid.

Y'all gonna have to collect your pizza from now on.

 

We're against child labor 'round here, too.

[Eddy Vortex]

38 minutes ago, Dorientje Woller said:

I would grab those 2 by the ears if I see them trying to buy cigarettes

Oy, there's a store that I shall not name on flickr that actually spammed a childrens group with cigarette and drug ads.

[Arielle Popstar]

2 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

That's quite true, but it's quibbling and misses the point that this thread and the one on Avatars is focused on.  As I said a short while ago, "The few who posted as children are no real challenge, but as we saw in the previous thread, there's a lot of uncertainty in people's minds when avs might be in the 13 - 20 range, almost always if they are women." Toddlers and pre-teens are not a problem. However, it's impossible to draw a hard line, using objective criteria, that can tell you whether the avatar you are looking at is a 14-18 year old mature-looking girl or a 19-22 year old young-looking woman.  We and Governance are left making judgments using gut feelings, experience, biases, and a flock of situational variables.  

The dilemma is that some people don't trust Governance to make reasonable judgements in the face of that uncertainty, so they are hoping for a few hard lines. ("She's too short!" "She has big boobs!" "She has a ponytail!" )  That's just not going to work.

And yet .... the reassuring result of Blush Bravin's thread so far is that most of us can make reasonable judgments without hard line criteria. There are not many votes on any photo that amount to, "I'd AR this person and let Governance decide". I find that encouraging and I have enough trust in Governance, personally, that I am confident their judgement is at least as good as ours.  We're not going to have anywhere near as many young women avatars caught by the policy as many people fear.

 

 

My concern is that Governance has a number of people working in it that would presumably have a similar range of educated guesses as the pictures in the thread. I find that potentially concerning when they do not seem to have policies in place internally or for the residents of what sort of characteristics they look at to make a determination of age. Some in this thread have given us their reasonings for why they chose the age they did on various photo's and I for one am thankful for that because it helps me to learn more about what does and doesn't age an avatar. 

That is more then Governance has done for us so far. Hopefully they will enlighten us more in the meeting later but not sure whether I should hold my breath.

[Rolig Loon]

1 minute ago, Arielle Popstar said:

My concern is that Governance has a number of people working in it that would presumably have a similar range of educated guesses as the pictures in the thread.

That's precisely why I am encouraged. Governance staff are not AI machines.  They are people like you and me and the people who made those judgments in Blush Bravin's thread.  Most of us seem to be able to decide whether most of the examples are underage or adult women.  We're pretty good at it, without having hard criteria spelled out. I don't expect to convince you or anyone else to trust Governance  -- we each carry too much personal experience to make that possible -- but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. We're all trying to do our best here.

[Zalificent Corvinus]

16 minutes ago, Blaise Glendevon said:

We're against child labor 'round here, too.

L3-37 want's a word!