Lindens Statements from Governance Meeting

[Silachan Rain]

I think an easier solution instead of trying to come up with all these different caveats of who should or shouldn't use what type of modesty layer, start with the basics:

- Prepubescent aged avatars must wear body skins without genitalia details. No nipples, no nether regions. Just a slight airbrush over - if LL wants to be specific, we can insist that it's a different color than the skin. This would apply to both masculine and feminine avatars - allowing creators to only have to redo/create *one* skin, and anyone of any gender identity can use the same skin regardless of avatar gender presentation.

 

- Pubescent avatars up to 17 years old who have breasts are required to have a modesty layer built into the skin over the top half that *at minimum* covers the areola and nipples, and lower anatomy is covered too. Similar to the "bra" modesty layer concept that's current there. No one should have issues with simple "breasts = cover the offending areas" designation for pubescent avatars.
 

While the modesty layer for the teens would be mildly annoying since a lot of us wear adult skins, it wouldn't be *as* impossible. And it'd be something I'd be fine working around as someone who uses adult skins on teen avatars. I'd just find a compliant body skin that matches in tone, or use a neck blender.

This would erase the gendered-specific part of the ruling, it would remove the focus on specific body parts for prepubescent children avatars and would make it reasonable for teenagers too. It would allow skin creators to only have to worry about ONE upload per skin tone, instead of two variations - "male and female".

Sure, the concept could probably use some work, but I think this would be a middle ground that would make everyone happier. And I'm working on getting feedback before I submit a feedback officially.

[Kathlen Onyx]

8 minutes ago, brodiac90 said:

Keira also said she saw no issue with avatars opting not to wear the back part of the modesty layer and that she would also feed that back. 

I agree with this. I think if creators could create the modesty layer like the one on jamie w/o the back  AND make it in different colors besides skin tone. White, cream , black, denim, etc so it could at least match the pants or top should it creep over the top of the shirt/pants they are wearing.  This has the potential to be really cute.  I'm not sure if a creator could make it like the Maitryeya HUD and have different skin colors you can choose from. If you are wearing jeans perhaps you choose a denim color for the bottoms so if the jeans are a little bit below the modesty panel it doesn't look so bad. It would blend in.

Edited May 10 by Kathlen Onyx

[Arielle Popstar]

2 hours ago, Anna Salyx said:

As far as the chat log data here, while not actively monitors, I would bet even odds that it's streamed through an automated filter for specific key words and phrases that would then flag for followup scrutiny.  But then again it might not be.  we'll never really know.

If it was then it begs the question why they even need residents to flag and AR a*eplay since it should be reasonably obvious to them long before. It would then also be entirely possible for them to identify and ban those adult avatars who search out and entice child avatars, though that doesn't seem to happen. 

It does maybe explain why I have suddenly been hit with ads that I was sure i had only mentioned to someone in IM about particular routers. Are they selling the info contained in them to "trusted partners" for scraping? Remember how upset we were over the b.bot scraping and displaying info? No wonder LL didn't seem to care until such a big fuss was created over it that they had to do something. Were they doing it themselves already?

That meeting raised more questions then it answered.

[brodiac90]

14 minutes ago, Silachan Rain said:

I think an easier solution instead of trying to come up with all these different caveats of who should or shouldn't use what type of modesty layer, start with the basics:

- Prepubescent aged avatars must wear body skins without genitalia details. No nipples, no nether regions. Just a slight airbrush over - if LL wants to be specific, we can insist that it's a different color than the skin. This would apply to both masculine and feminine avatars - allowing creators to only have to redo/create *one* skin, and anyone of any gender identity can use the same skin regardless of avatar gender presentation.

 

- Pubescent avatars up to 17 years old who have breasts are required to have a modesty layer built into the skin over the top half that *at minimum* covers the areola and nipples, and lower anatomy is covered too. Similar to the "bra" modesty layer concept that's current there. No one should have issues with simple "breasts = cover the offending areas" designation for pubescent avatars.
 

While the modesty layer for the teens would be mildly annoying since a lot of us wear adult skins, it wouldn't be *as* impossible. And it'd be something I'd be fine working around as someone who uses adult skins on teen avatars. I'd just find a compliant body skin that matches in tone, or use a neck blender.

This would erase the gendered-specific part of the ruling, it would remove the focus on specific body parts for prepubescent children avatars and would make it reasonable for teenagers too. It would allow skin creators to only have to worry about ONE upload per skin tone, instead of two variations - "male and female".

Sure, the concept could probably use some work, but I think this would be a middle ground that would make everyone happier. And I'm working on getting feedback before I submit a feedback officially.

While I broadly agree with the majority of your post, I'm not sure there is a need to remove nipples from prepubscent avatars. By removing them, you're essentially saying that there is something sexual and wrong about them, which could not be further from the truth since there is nothing remotely sexual about nipples on a young child. It's redundant anyway since the modesty layer would cover them. By adding that requirement, you may actually be breaking more content. 

Edited May 10 by brodiac90

[Kathlen Onyx]

Just now, brodiac90 said:

While I broadly agree with the majority of your post, I'm not sure there is a need to remove nipples from prepubscent avatars. By removing them, you're essentially saying that there is something sexual and wrong about them, which could not be further from the truth since there is nothing remotely sexual about nipples on a young child. 

For female prepubscent there would be no nipples because there will be some sort of covering. Whether that be a bra or t-shirt or tank top.

BUT for male prepubscent avatars having no nipples, in my mind, would look stupid.

[CaerolleClaudel]

3 hours ago, Leslie Trihey said:

I had to come back and re-visit this. Second life is very much apart of my personal life. Has been for 17 years and 8 months. It allows me to be my real self while in the real world it's incredibly dangerous and sometimes even can be fatal to be a person like me.

I am closeted transgender in real life and may never *ever* be able to be my real self. In second life I can at least obtain a small piece of feeling what it's like to be free.

For you second life is a "Quirky little game" For others it's an escape from an incredibly harsh reality. Eroding the "Reasonable Expectation of Privacy" that most people have in regards to the virtual world/internet and their virtual identity is not only a good way to lose customers, but also sets a dangerous precedent.

I don't expect sympathy, in fact I expect you'll laugh react to this because you seem to get a kick out of being sadistic to people. Just telling it how it is.

This got long, sorry, feel free to ignore ofc...

I have been debating quite a bit whether to reply to this or not. I have not read farther than this page of posts, so perhaps someone else has. I even thought of sending you a DM, but thought perhaps this might get someone else thinking about things.

I worry this is going to be taken the wrong way, and perhaps I am overly cynical, or misunderstanding something, and am indeed, just straight up wrong. I really do get your concern, I am queer and totally out but with the way US politics has been going, and living in a far right state, I worry quite a lot about what might happen to me and people like me. Also, I have to admit that in many situations I do not really make much of a point of being queer; in principle I perhaps should, and sometimes do, but generally I have a fairly strong sense of self-preservation unless I get pushed too far or it is someone else who needs defending.

However, I will have a go anyhow. I hope this is not condescending or taken as minimizing your concerns. If so, please feel free to call me out on it.

You stated:

"Eroding the "Reasonable Expectation of Privacy" that most people have in regards to the virtual world/internet and their virtual identity is not only a good way to lose customers, but also sets a dangerous precedent."

IMO, a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' does not exist on the internet, or in the end, *anywhere* in life. Even RL people legally held to privacy, for example doctors and lawyers, can betray you. They may suffer consequences, but anyone who knows anything about you can betray you. Esp on the internet. I do not expect anything I do on the internet to be private; it seems like every few weeks I get yet another notice that some company that forced me to give them a lot of info on me has allowed it to be stolen (I got one yesterday from Dell). Some of them offer 'free ID theft protection,' most just tell me to lock my credit. Unfortunately, often more is at risk than just ID theft.

I have no idea what level of privacy invasion LL has or hasn't done in the past, what they do now, or what they will do in the future, but as others have said, SL is not some secure system. Even if you are using the internet via some system like encryption, the people who receive whatever you send can do what they want with that info. Same with paper-only communications or documentation.

Of course, there are levels of expectations of privacy, with some communications having higher or lower expectations, but in the end we have to always be wary. I have known people who drove 200 miles to go to a bar where they could be openly queer, but while that lowers the risks, it would have been pretty trivial for someone to betray them (I don't know firsthand of it happening, though).

Sure, if we find out for sure that LL suddenly is burrowing deeper into our lives in SL, esp if they are scanning everything with AI for whatever, that is a big concern. Presumably you currently are not sharing any info that could link to your RL, but if you are, certainly your risk might increase with changes LL might make. However, you are taking a big risk already if you are doing that, and if you aren't, I wonder how much whatever changes LL might make will increase your risks?

I would guess the biggest risk would be that someone who works for LL might link your ID in SL with your RL ID via your account info, which would threaten you quite a lot if that person decided to do something shady and/cruel. That hopefully is extremely unlikely to happen. But please, if you have not already, consider the risks of disclosing certain things here, in SL, or pretty much any other place you do not have or at least have very solid reason to trust the person or people with whom you are disclosing or the medium through which you are communicating. While in many instances the expectation of privacy might be reasonable and decent, I pretty feel it rarely really exists.

Again, sorry if I have upset you by any of this, and feel free to reply here or in DM.

Caerolle Claudel 🫂

 

 

[brodiac90]

Just now, Kathlen Onyx said:

For female prepubscent there would be no nipples because there will be some sort of covering. Whether that be a bra or t-shirt or tank top.

BUT for male prepubscent avatars having no nipples, in my mind, would look stupid.

My thoughts exactly. You summed it up better than I could.

[Silachan Rain]

2 minutes ago, brodiac90 said:

While I broadly agree with the majority of your post, I'm not sure there is a need to remove nipples from prepubscent avatars. By removing them, you're essentially saying that there is something sexual and wrong about them, which could not be further from the truth since there is nothing remotely sexual about nipples on a young child. It's redundant anyway since the modesty layer would cover them. By adding that requirement, you may actually be breaking more content. 

I personally completely agree too, but many people seem to think that the nipples need to be covered. I'd be fine with removing that requirement entirely too, but I have far more of an issue with saying a toddler boy can have his top uncovered but a toddler girl needs to have it covered - you know? Which is where it seems to be heading currently, before we hear any revisions.

[brodiac90]

1 minute ago, Silachan Rain said:

I personally completely agree too, but many people seem to think that the nipples need to be covered. I'd be fine with removing that requirement entirely too, but I have far more of an issue with saying a toddler boy can have his top uncovered but a toddler girl needs to have it covered - you know? Which is where it seems to be heading currently, before we hear any revisions.

It's not currently a requirement. The TOS references genatalia, not breasts or nipples. It would be an additon, not a removal. A stupid one really considering what @Kathlen Onyx said. You won't see them anyway on females and boys would look stupid without them. 

I do hear what you're saying about toddlers though, I've not made my mind up yet to be honest. 

[CaerolleClaudel]

1 hour ago, AmeliaJ08 said:

When a Linden needed to log in to my account to fix something they told me and I then felt I had to tidy it up a little to avoid being too embarrassed.

Kinda like that thing where your mother told you to wear good underwear since you never know when you might get hit by a bus. Or maybe that was just mine...

Either way, keep a tidy inventory. One day someone else might see it.

 

 

 

That reminds me of the old funny-but-sad/scary joke about same-gender couples 'straightening' up their place before their parents or certain other people came over...

[Silachan Rain]

1 minute ago, brodiac90 said:

It's not currently a requirement. The TOS references genatalia, not breasts or nipples. It would be an additon, not a removal. A stupid one really considering what @Kathlen Onyx said. You won't see them anyway on females and boys would look stupid without them. 

I do hear what you're saying about toddlers though, I've not made my mind up yet to be honest. 

I'm talking about a theoretical alternative to the current requirement of gender-specific modesty layers.

Edited May 11 by Silachan Rain

[brodiac90]

4 minutes ago, Silachan Rain said:

I'm talking about a theoretical alternative to the current suggestion of gender-specific modesty layers.

Perhaps LL could use more inclusive language? If it makes people feel better then I'm all for that. I don't think you can ignore biology though. If your avatar has breasts and you're a child then you should definitely have a chest modesty layer regardless of your identify. 

Edited May 11 by brodiac90

[Silachan Rain]

Just now, brodiac90 said:

Perhaps LL could use more inclusive language. If it makes people feel better then I'm all for that. 

Definitely no harm in more inclusive language. I feel like that's a pretty major oversight on their part tbh. It feels like they threw these new suggestions together last minute, talked about it a bit, and decided it was good enough.

[MissSweetViolet]

18 hours ago, Alwin Alcott said:

isn't this the answer?

[14:35] Keira Linden: The other concern in regards to the modesty layer is how it will impact existing content. To be clear, we are requiring skin sellers to have the areas shown in the images use a modesty layer on the skin files. However, for existing content, bake layers and alphas can be a viable temporary solution but we would STRONGLY encourage everyone to move to a more permanent solution.

Well sort of, it answers temp using it for bodies not supported. I was taking about clothing, 

 

18 hours ago, Alwin Alcott said:

isn't this the answer?

[14:35] Keira Linden: The other concern in regards to the modesty layer is how it will impact existing content. To be clear, we are requiring skin sellers to have the areas shown in the images use a modesty layer on the skin files. However, for existing content, bake layers and alphas can be a viable temporary solution but we would STRONGLY encourage everyone to move to a more permanent solution.

 

18 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I may be misunderstanding Miss Sweet's question, but I don't think she's asking about using alphas to hide naughty bits. She's asking if it's ok to use alphas as one normally does, to ensure that the body is properly hidden beneath mesh clothes, even when that obscures and hides the baked-in undies on the skin.

This, yes. I was hoping for reassurance it was okay to use it for fitting clothing.

[Rowan Amore]

12 minutes ago, MissSweetViolet said:

Well sort of, it answers temp using it for bodies not supported. I was taking about clothing, 

 

 

This, yes. I was hoping for reassurance it was okay to use it for fitting clothing.

I can't see why you wouldn't be allowed to continue using alpha layers as.long as the skin has the modesty panel or you're wearing BoM undies.  If not, what exactly do they expect people to wear?  Auto  alpha is also still a thing.  Sometimes, I really wonder how much they know about the way people dress in SL.

Edited May 11 by Rowan Amore

[Ceka Cianci]

1 hour ago, MissSweetViolet said:

Well sort of, it answers temp using it for bodies not supported. I was taking about clothing, 

 

 

This, yes. I was hoping for reassurance it was okay to use it for fitting clothing.

Yes it is ok, because an alpha layer does not hide the modesty layer so that you can see the nude skin underneath. It hides all the layers.

It's also why they say that the modesty layer cannot be the same tone as the skin.. They are concerned about nudity  in those areas.

The part mentioned about transparency with the modesty layer was making sure that it is not where you can see through it like you could with say something like, sheer clothing.. They want those areas  hidden.. An alpha cut or layer will hide those areas still because they hide all the layers at the same time.

That part of the guidelines is written for those creating the bodies and the skins..

They mention transparency twice in the guide lines and both times those lines are to content creators.

Residents presenting as Child Avatars shall be prohibited from the following: 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.

Content for Child Avatars being sold inworld and/or on Marketplace must comply with the General Content Rating and adhere to the following: 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.

Edited May 11 by Ceka Cianci

[alanastar11232022]

I have a question that needs to be clarified  SOOO ... does the  comment about  Avis and tos  and all that   mean that the ddlg  abdl community is included in it as well ok so  for those who don't know abdl is a coping mechanism in that   a lot of people use and  also fun with  Daddy Doms as  baby girls  all Adults  that wear  and Participate. in  both sexual and none sexual activities  but  also have   part of it being  diapers and bottles and  pacis ect    that are  in the mp  labbled for adult use only like snuggles and   puddlepants  and stuff like that the creators  have specialty  stated it is for an adult avi and make it for adult  furry and  human avis  are wer  grouped in to this  saying we cant wear  diapers or  walk around  with  pacis and such  if someone that  can answer this  would be great  not to mention that most of the sims  that have this  we acutivly  keep  kid and twen avis off it  if anyone   looks  like they playing a  kid or tween there are instently banned form the sim .... and  even in the rl comuity  we  keep minors out   of it 

[alanastar11232022]

2 minutes ago, alanastar11232022 said:

I have a question that needs to be clarified  SOOO ... does the  comment about  Avis and tos  and all that   mean that the ddlg  abdl community is included in it as well ok so  for those who don't know abdl is a coping mechanism in that   a lot of people use and  also fun with  Daddy Doms as  baby girls  all Adults  that wear  and Participate. in  both sexual and none sexual activities  but  also have   part of it being  diapers and bottles and  pacis ect    that are  in the mp  labbled for adult use only like snuggles and   puddlepants  and stuff like that the creators  have specialty  stated it is for an adult avi and make it for adult  furry and  human avis  are wer  grouped in to this  saying we cant wear  diapers or  walk around  with  pacis and such  if someone that  can answer this  would be great  not to mention that most of the sims  that have this  we acutivly  keep  kid and twen avis off it  if anyone   looks  like they playing a  kid or tween there are instently banned form the sim .... and  even in the rl comuity  we  keep minors out   of it 

The Truth Behind Adult Babies and Diaper Lovers

In a world that is rich in diversity, understanding various ways of life and forms of personal expression can be an enlightening journey. Do you know what ABDL means? If not, we're here to shed light on it. ABDL is an acronym that stands for "Adult Baby Diaper Lover." This term characterizes a unique community of individuals who engage in adult role-playing, specifically with elements of paraphilic infantilism and diaper love. This may sound unfamiliar, but people around the globe are a part of this community, finding comfort and contentment in the ABDL lifestyle.

Understanding the world of ABDL can be daunting. That's where we, Tykables are here to help. We're a brand invested in enhancing the ABDL experience by providing high-quality adult diapers, adult baby onesie-style clothing, and a range of other related items. Boasting years of expertise in this field, we understand the importance of security, comfort, and – above all – respect for personal lifestyles. Consequently, our commitment to eliminating stigma and promoting acceptance drives all that we do.

Let's dive in and explore the intriguing world of Adult Baby Diaper Lovers, taking an empathetic and respectful view on the topic that ensures everyone's feelings and life choices are valued. this is a incert of those who do this in real life and  how  we work  ect  if that helps  at all 

[diamond Marchant]

7 minutes ago, alanastar11232022 said:

I have a question that needs to be clarified  SOOO ...

Regardless of what your RP is, if it was considered OK with respect to TOS previously, and your avis are all presenting as 18+ avatars, you can carry on as before, IMHO.

[alanastar11232022]

43 minutes ago, diamond Marchant said:

Regardless of what your RP is, if it was considered OK with respect to TOS previously, and your avis are all presenting as 18+ avatars, you can carry on as before, IMHO.

so my adult avitar  as along as i am prosenting as such adult .....  even if the rp  is  mentaly  not phycialy   as a adult baby  can still walk around in my diaper and paci without   it breaking tos 
https://gyazo.com/be780fb8ec0faa6eb6b74dfe4bcf85d2

Firestorm-Releasex64 6.6.17.70368 - alanastar11232022 (gyazo.com)

Firestorm-Releasex64 6.6.17.70368 - alanastar11232022 (gyazo.com) 

how can u look at these pictures and think she kid like  breast and  cleavage  and  tall and  adults features though and though  i dont understand how  people  just  auto see   the paci and the  diapers that are  on mp  and tailerd and  says  it is for adult avitars as  a kid  assoted  thing 

Edited May 11 by alanastar11232022

[Rolig Loon]

2 minutes ago, alanastar11232022 said:

can still walk around in my diaper and paci without   it breaking tos

If your av looks convincingly like an adult, yes. I'm not sure that most people would say that photo looks convincingly, though, so you'd probably draw a few ARs.  The Governance would have to decide.   Just my guess.

Aside from that, of course, an individual land owner can still eject you from a region no matter what the TOS says, regardless of what your av looks like.  That hasn't changed in the updated TOS.

[Rowan Amore]

42 minutes ago, alanastar11232022 said:

Adult Baby Diaper Lover." This term characterizes a unique community of individuals who engage in adult role-playing, specifically with elements of paraphilic infantilism and diaper love

Paraphilic infantilism is a form of ***** (AP).  Meaning you're RPing a form of age regression.  If that were to include, and you did mention it did, sexual play, that could get you an AR.  Personally, for what it's worth, your avatar does not look 18.

 

Edited May 11 by Rowan Amore

[alanastar11232022]

1 minute ago, Rolig Loon said:

If your av looks convincingly like an adult, yes. I'm not sure that most people would say that photo looks convincingly, though, so you'd probably draw a few ARs.  The Governance would have to decide.   Just my guess.

Aside from that, of course, an individual land owner can still eject you from a region no matter what the TOS says, regardless of what your av looks like.  That hasn't changed in the updated TOS.

i dont think that the pic i took of my avi  anyways  says that im not and adult  ....   cuse hell if any  kid avitart tryed to wear  this   would be grounder for life  and  if say my rl children treyed to ware somthign like this  or  show that much skin or  what not i would  also  ground them for life ...  but yeah  every thing is up to the   people that own the game .. but my statement is  only that  shouldnt be lables as a child and  not beable to do adult things if  ur in the abdl comnuity   or the  daddy dom  baby girl comunity   and wanted to  see if  that  someone could  say that  it is allowed cuse  there are thounds  of   us in this comunity that is  trying to get this answerrd   and  feel that what we wear or what we  do  as  adults ...  sholdnt be tailered to  what is conciderd  as kid like  using the       how  goveerment was trying to bann fruity vapes   cuse they thought it intises kids to do it ...  no cuse   it has alwasy been forever an adult  accitviey  and hell we  as adults  now  over 21  like fruity stuff 2 

[alanastar11232022]

2 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Paraphilic infantilism is a form of ***** (AP).  Meaning your RPing a form of age regression.  If that were to include, and you did mention it did, sexual play, that could get you an AR.  Personally, for what it's worth, your avatar does not look 18.

 

she is 100% 18  

[Rowan Amore]

2 minutes ago, alanastar11232022 said:

she is 100% 18  

Mmhm.  Maybe you should post that picture in this thread and see what others think.