Lindens Statements from Governance Meeting

[CaerolleClaudel]

5 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

Btw, nipples are an erogenous zone for both women and men. So is the neck, the thigh, the small of the back, the waist, feet and hands, so one shouldn't use that as an argument for covering them. I think what it really comes down too is that heterosexual men find female breasts arousing. But if they're being used to nurse a baby or just out while sunbathing, they are not inherently sexual. 

Sorry to be picky, but it isn't just str8 men that find women's breasts arousing. Bi women and lesbians exist, and IME both are pretty fond of women's breasts.

[Kathlen Onyx]

1 minute ago, Persephone Emerald said:

Btw, nipples are an erogenous zone for both women and men. So is the neck, the thigh, the small of the back, the waist, feet and hands, so one shouldn't use that as an argument for covering them. I think what it really comes down too is that heterosexual men find female breasts arousing. But if they're being used to nurse a baby or just out while sunbathing, they are not inherently sexual. 

I would agree with all this but the underlying psychological and /or  sexual reasons doesn't matter. LL will enforce the rules based on what is acceptable to them and their attorney's so they don't get into legal issues.  I doubt they care about anything else or any argument we come up with.

If removing the back of the modesty layer for females won't put them legally incompliant they will allow it. Not because anyone cares that teens might wear low dresses or tops.

[Persephone Emerald]

11 minutes ago, CaerolleClaudel said:

Sorry to be picky, but it isn't just str8 men that find women's breasts arousing. Bi women and lesbians exist, and IME both are pretty fond of women's breasts.

Oh, I know. I'm bisexual myself. It's men who have decided that women's bodies should be covered though, because if they feel aroused, it's somehow our fault.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

2 hours ago, alanastar11232022 said:

she is 100% 18  

The issue I think you're going to run into is that Governance has told us that they don't just look at one or two factors when considering the validity of an AR about a*eplay: they consider a wide variety of things, such as context, actions, location, etc.

In any other outfit, I think generally you could get away with claiming that this avatar is 18+, although she would still certainly look infantilized.

But Governance isn't just going to look at things like breast size or height. They're going to look at the diaper, and the pacifier. They're going to consider whether you are using "baby talk," and how you refer to your partner -- do you call him "daddy"? And, regardless of breast size and height, the more factors seem to contribute to the idea that you are under age, the more likely they're going to find that you've violated the ToS.

Which may or may not be fair, of course. Ironically, the fact that Governance will look at multiple factors, which will work to the advantage of most people, will likely put you in jeopardy.

[CaerolleClaudel]

2 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

Oh, I know. I'm bisexual myself. It's men who have decided that women's bodies should be covered though, because if they feel aroused, it's somehow our fault.

Ah, ok. Sorry!

[Coffee Pancake]

24 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Shows like The Mandelorian, Star Wars, Star Trek, and even Lord of the Rings all tend to fall roughly within the "PG" range for the good reason that, while there is violence, it is not graphic (or, in most cases, particularly extreme).

SL ratings are not movie ratings. They are deliberately distinct.

 

G expressly forbids violence of all kinds.

M has no definitions for violence. Nothing at all. Good Luck ?

A in the only safe place for ANY violence. Zero to a non consensual Dolcett BBQ with ticket sales.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

2 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

SL ratings are not movie ratings. They are deliberately distinct.

 

G expressly forbids violence of all kinds.

M has no definitions for violence. Nothing at all. Good Luck ?

A in the only safe place for ANY violence. Zero to a non consensual Dolcett BBQ with ticket sales.

Adult explicitly uses the term "intensely violent acts." Not all violent acts are "intense"; it is clearly implied that violence is permissible in Moderate regions. Just not "intensely violent acts."

This is something for which we can ask a clarification from LL, but I can't for the live of me imagine that combat RP that is of the same "intensity" or graphic quality as, say, Star Wars would cause problems in Moderate. Maybe we need to hear this articulated directly by Governance.

And, again, the minute you open the door to "intensely violent acts" in Moderate, you all but destroy one of the central points of having a Moderate rating, which is to permit people to make informed decisions about the kinds of content to which they are exposing themselves. People should be permitted to enjoy the relative freedoms of Moderate -- including sexuality in a private context -- without worrying about tripping over severed heads and intestines on their way to the bedroom.

[Leslie Trihey]

Most second life combat is barely pg, it's like beating each other with foam or using pellet guns until a combat meter/RP meter decide's someone falls over and a ketchup packet explodes.

Edited May 11 by Leslie Trihey

[Coffee Pancake]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Adult explicitly uses the term "intensely violent acts." Not all violent acts are "intense"; it is clearly implied that violence is permissible in Moderate regions. Just not "intensely violent acts." ....

Linden rules are deliberately vague or minimalist. Movie ratings are expansive and detailed.

 

It costs a lot of money to play pretend here. Governance aren't known for getting involved or context or talking to anyone individually and trying to help people who have been reported.

They are known for ignoring reports and exiling people and all their accounts.

So .. for hundreds of USD a month just to keep a place open, in this economy .. err on the side of caution.

 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Just now, Leslie Trihey said:

Most second life combat is barely pg, it's like beating each other with foam or using pellet guns until the meter's decide someone falls over and a ketchup packet explodes.

Exactly.

Restricting ALL combat RP to an Adult region is the same kind of fear-induced overreaction that we see from people who ban child avatars merely because they are afraid of any sort of association with child avatars.

I would like to see a pronouncement from LL on this, though, in order to make it 100% clear.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

2 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

Linden rules are deliberately vague or minimalist. Movie ratings are expansive and detailed.

 

It costs a lot of money to play pretend here. Governance aren't known for getting involved or context or talking to anyone individually and trying to help people who have been reported.

They are known for ignoring reports and exiling people and all their accounts.

So .. for hundreds of USD a month just to keep a place open, in this economy .. err on the side of caution.

 

Yes, "ambiguity" is a deliberate policy in LL's ToS (and, I suspect, in most). Which is why I'd like to hear this more clearly spelled out.

Again though, the fact that it is "intense" violence that is restricted to Adult very clear implies that other forms -- "less" intense ones -- aren't. Otherwise, there'd be no point in including that adjective.

And again, for that reason, I am almost certain that we'll find that combat RP that doesn't involve really or unnecessarily graphic violence, or things like torture, are permitted in Moderate.

[Frankie Antonioni]

1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Shows like The Mandelorian, Star Wars, Star Trek, and even Lord of the Rings all tend to fall roughly within the "PG" range for the good reason that, while there is violence, it is not graphic (or, in most cases, particularly extreme).

For comparison, consider Game of Thrones, which features extremely graphic violence, frequently intended to shock (and titillate).

The descriptions of "Adult" and "Moderate" ratings do not explicitly mention combat RP, because the issue isn't so much "violence," which both can feature, as "extreme violence," which is not permitted in "Moderate."

I don't doubt that many combat RP regions are "Adult" just to be on the safe side, as Coffee suggests -- but I really don't think there is any reason why combat of the sort that is characteristic of Star Wars, The Mandelorian, etc., should not be allowable on Moderate regions. It's the kind of stuff that you get in GOT or the new series based on Fallout that should be restricted to Adult because there the violence is much more extreme, explicit, graphic, and part of the narrative.

There's a real danger in sort of blurring the lines here -- "swords and light sabers are extreme violence" -- because it elides very real distinctions between how people respond to the depictions of violence. Somebody being run through with a sword, with a little splash of blood, is quite different from someone being graphically disemboweled by one.

@Frankie Antonelli, I hope that this explains my objections? I don't think combat RP should be, or indeed by the rules IS restricted to Adult. I think THAT depends on the way in which the combat is depicted. But please feel free to respond here, or in-world, if you want to talk about this more. I get that combat RP is important to some child avatars, but we can't simply collapse the rating system to accommodate that. I think instead we need to think carefully about what we mean by "combat" and "extreme violence."

I never saw Game of Thrones. I have seen Vikings, and the Sopranos. I belong to some combat groups, but I don't do any combat.  I do have a store that sells guns, and other items.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

5 minutes ago, Frankie Antonioni said:

I never saw Game of Thrones. I have seen Vikings, and the Sopranos. I belong to some combat groups, but I don't do any combat.  I do have a store that sells guns, and other items.

But you do understand the distinction I am making between the depiction of violence, and the depiction of "intense" or "extreme violence"?

If, using one of your guns, you shoot someone and they fall over backwards "dead," with maybe a bit of blood on their chest, that would not, I'd judge, be "intense" violence. And I'm willing to bet Governance is going to agree: they're not going to suspend someone who merely falls to the ground "dead."

If, on the other hand, you shoot someone and their head explodes in a shower of blood, bone, and brains . . . that's graphic and intense. And that kind of thing, like torture, cannibalism, and other things that are gory and more than usually "violent," belongs in Adult.

As I say, I'd like to hear a clarification on this from Governance to make it less ambiguous, but I honestly see no reason why the kind of violence we see depicted in most TV shows would not be appropriate for Moderate. Just as sex that is not public is permitted.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Inara Pey has provided one of her invaluably detailed summaries of the Governance Users Group meeting; it includes many direct quotes from Keira and Tommy:

https://modemworld.me/2024/05/10/2024-sl-governance-meeting-week-19-child-avatar-policy/

[brodiac90]

2 hours ago, Persephone Emerald said:

Personally, I don't see anything sexual about nipples unless they're in a state of sexual arousal. I think female avatars and pictures of women should not have different rules than male avatars and pictures. Most people in the US ( including LL) view adult, female breasts as being sexual, however. 

I want young child avatars to be treated the same, no matter their gender. If the only way to do that is for both male and female babies and young children to not show nipples, then I'd rather they just not be drawn on the skin to begin with. Yes, it would look weird, but it would be equally weird for both boys and girls. They can both wear whatever kind of top they wish too - a T-shirt, a halter top, a bikini top, or even a bib on a baby.

I respectfully disagree. The whole discussion around removing the back part of the female chest modesty layer was because of how much content it broke in regards to dresses/low back leotards and swimsuits with circuluar openings at the back. We want to break the least amount of content as possible, not break more. 

If you require boys to wear a chest modesty layer as well then that will mean boys will not be able to be topless. We discussed this last time, and someone pointed out whether it would be okay for adult males to be topless, and we all agreed yes, it would be fine. Then we all realised you would be requiring boys to cover up more than men, when typically, in RL, it is the other way around. 

This is from someone btw, who fully expected boys to have to wear a chest modesty layer because of how child avatars work, and who was pleasntly surprised when I found out we didn't. 

Your idea is basically, let's treat everyone equally by disadvantaging everyone equally, where if you disagree about the modesty layer for female toddlers, you should argue for its removal. 

Edited May 11 by brodiac90

[brodiac90]

In regards to combat RP / violence and child avatars I would think:

• Most people don't want to see children being hurt in anyway. 
• However, there are some forms of 'combat' that I think would be acceptable, for example, think of the laser tag game that is out at the Welcome Hub or things like paintballing. You know, things that would be acceptable for kids to partake in real life. 

[Persephone Emerald]

4 minutes ago, brodiac90 said:

I respectfully disagree. The whole discussion around removing the back part of the female chest modesty layer was because of how much content it broke in regards to dresses/low back leotards and swimsuits with circuluar openings at the back. We want to break the least amount of content as possible, not break more. 

If you require boys to wear a chest modesty layer as well then that will mean boys will not be able to be topless. We discussed this last time, and someone pointed out whether it would be okay for adult males to be topless, and we all agreed yes, it would be fine. Then we all realised you would be requiring boys to cover up more than men, when typically, in RL, it is the other way around. 

I agree that boys and men should be able to be topless. I'm just saying that it's not "fair" that girls and women can't be topless too. There's a cultural distinction made that because women have breasts (which nature created to feed their babies), their chests have to be covered. This is not true in all cultures, and in RL young children of both sexes may be allowed to go around topless, bottomless or naked. We can't allow this in SL, however, because of various cultural sensibilities.

At what point do girls have to cover their chests? Should it matter if they live Europe, the US or the Amazon rainforest?

Note: It's possible the children pictured are 3 boys. The webpage I took it from doesn't say. 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

12 minutes ago, brodiac90 said:

In regards to combat RP / violence and child avatars I would think:

• Most people don't want to see children being hurt in anyway. 
• However, there are some forms of 'combat' that I think would be acceptable, for example, think of the laser tag game that is out at the Welcome Hub or things like paintballing. You know, things that would be acceptable for kids to partake in real life. 

You'd likely know more about this than I, as I'm not a member of the community, but I'd have thought that, in addition to the kinds of "violent" narrative games kids might play -- "Cops and Robbers," or "Cowboy" or "Knights" for instance -- that there are those who play children within larger RP narratives, as for instance children on a Federation Star Ship, or Baby Yoda and young Anakin in Star Wars.

And then there are OTHER kinds of combat RP that do, I think, get problematic. At one time, for instance, Battle Royale was pretty popular in SL -- and probably still is? It teeters on the edge of "Adult" I'd think. The Hunger Games -- which I actually sort of admire somewhat -- might similarly be thought to "go too far"?

But that's the kind of thing some clarification from LL might assist with.

Edited May 11 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Persephone Emerald]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

You'd likely know more about this than I, as I'm not a member of the community, but I'd have thought that, in addition to the kinds of "violent" narrative games kids might play -- "Cops and Robbers," or "Cowboy" or "Knights" for instance -- that there are those who play children within larger RP narratives, as for instance children on a Federation Star Ship, or Baby Yoda and young Anakin in Star Wars.

And then there are OTHER kinds of combat RP that do, I think, get problematic. At one time, for instance, Battle Royale was pretty popular in SL -- and probably still is? It teeters on the edge of "Adult" I'd think.

Roleplaying Peter Pan's group in Never Never Land is likely fine in SL, but what about Treasure Island or Lord of the Flies?

[Scylla Rhiadra]

13 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

Roleplaying Peter Pan's group in Never Never Land is likely fine in SL, but what about Treasure Island or Lord of the Flies?

Treasure Island was subtitled "A Book for Boys," so is arguably what we would today call "Young Adult Fiction." It has some "scary" moments, but nothing I'd call really extreme or intense violence.

Lord of the Flies is in the same league as Battle Royale in terms of violence and is, despite the fact that it has often been taught to high school students, really not a story for kids. Simon getting ripped to pieces on the beach, or the death of Piggy, are both pretty intense and awful.

But yep. It's not always going to be cut and dry. And I suspect (especially since GOT) that we have a higher tolerance for violence (including sexual violence) than was the case even 20 years ago.

[Coffee Pancake]

9 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

Roleplaying Peter Pan's group in Never Never Land is likely fine in SL, but what about Treasure Island or Lord of the Flies?

No one is picking things apart and considering the lowest necessary ranking.

They are figuring two things..

• "What do I need to permit to get the players I want to participate."
• "Don't want to be banned because one of them broke ToS .. which they will."

 

[Theresa Tennyson]

4 hours ago, Coffee Pancake said:

Linden rules are deliberately vague or minimalist. Movie ratings are expansive and detailed

 

And they're assigned by review boards that are opaque and capricious. Be careful what you wish for.

[Jaylinbridges]

2 hours ago, brodiac90 said:

However, there are some forms of 'combat' that I think would be acceptable, for example, think of the laser tag game that is out at the Welcome Hub or things like paintballing.

The laser tag game had quite a lot of blood and body parts scattered about, when I played it.  It was all about killing before you were killed.  Of course their were zombies to zap, and zombie blood is dusty.  This was also on a G-rated region.  

They removed the laser tag areas months ago, and it is now part of a totally empty Community groups area.  What happened to all the SL groups that were supposed to go there? 

[Jaylinbridges]

8 hours ago, alanastar11232022 said:

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 

She looks about 14 to me.  Today's teenage girls reach puberty earlier than in past years, because so many are overweight and the body thinks it needs to get the baby making parts ready.  Big boobs on Jr high school  girls is nothing unusual.  Add the diaper and dildo pacifier in her mouth, and that  sex with old men is why she is there - well if that isn't age-play, I will bite my big toe.

Maybe adding a non removable face mask to under 18 avatars would help improve SL's image.  My Adult beds sure use the mouth and tongue in animations - must be a sexual attachment worth covering.

Edited May 11 by Jaylinbridges

[BilliJo Aldrin]

8 hours ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

Am I missing something. Where does it say Child Avatars are able to engage in combat?

lol so now if the avi looks under 18, they can’t carry guns?

If its not forbidden, its allowed 😂