family Family RP Clarification

[Jorden Lorefield]

So I've been looking over the newly formed Terms of Service, regarding child avatars. Lots of changes there, returning to second life after being away for a time, and reading about it was a bit surprising, and I have a question on family RP. 

If I am engaged in family RP, giving my child a bath in the confines of my home, and they're sitting in a bath tub, role playing bath-time you’re telling me, that my child  or myself or both could have our accounts terminated for what is essentially normal nonsexual parent/Child activities. Is family role play now being regarded as something immoral?

It’s possible that I’m reading or interpreting this wrong, I surely hope that is the case, as in appearance, seems to be unfairly prejudicial. I didn't see any changes for other avatar types. I find it hard to believe second life is now banning accounts for PG, nonsexual role play.

Comments would be appreciated, as long as it’s respectful and on point. 

Maybe, a linden can comment on this issue.

[Rowan Amore]

Responses in your other post...

5 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

As long as the child avatar is not naked, role-playing baths is fine.  That was the biggest change, no child nudity, along with child avatars no longer being allowed on adult regions.

 

3 minutes ago, brodiac90 said:

I personally don't do bath time RP but I can understand there are those who do. The rules are clear. Child avatars are required to have a modesty underwear layer and must never be nude. Furthermore they must not be near nudity. So if you as the adult is fully clothed and the child avatar goes into the bathtub wearing their modesty layer then no TOS has been breached. You can get kid bathtubs that have bubble bath so once you're sitting in the bath it wouldn't be obvious they were wearing a modesty layer if immersion is that important to you. 

 

[Jorden Lorefield]

So a child can't be naked in a bathtub wtf, since when does giving a child a bath become a tos breech? taking a bath in your underwear or what ever is not realistic at all, I think they need to revisit this, they clearly weren't thinking that clearly when they came up with that line of bull *****. If I may ask what made second life officials go on a  vendetta like this.

Shakes her head

[Rowan Amore]

4 minutes ago, Jorden Lorefield said:

is not realistic at all

Most of SL isn't realiatic.

Addressing Your Concerns: Updates to Our Child Avatar Policy https://community.secondlife.com/blogs/entry/15575-addressing-your-concerns-updates-to-our-child-avatar-policy/

[James Starling]

7 minutes ago, Jorden Lorefield said:

So a child can't be naked in a bathtub wtf, since when does giving a child a bath become a tos breech? taking a bath in your underwear or what ever is not realistic at all, I think they need to revisit this, they clearly weren't thinking that clearly when they came up with that line of bull *****. If I may ask what made second life officials go on a  vendetta like this.

Shakes her head

Posting here as well for prosperity. 

From my post in the RP forums - 

Whether you like it or not those are the new rules. There was a 150+ page mega thread when the new TOS dropped on May 2nd. 

There is a big difference between what a RL child and parent do in the privacy of their home and what a virtual child and parent do on a commercial platform where anyone can take a screenshot / video. What LL have done is bring SL in line with pretty much every other game / virtual platform. I for one can't think of any game / app etc where you can have a naked child. 

The potential for those sort of images is kryptonite to LL as a business. You want child avatars to still be a thing in SL then this is how it has to be.   

[Jorden Lorefield]

Just now, Rowan Amore said:

Most of SL isn't realiatic.

Addressing Your Concerns: Updates to Our Child Avatar Policy https://community.secondlife.com/blogs/entry/15575-addressing-your-concerns-updates-to-our-child-avatar-policy/

I understand that, going to look it over, for many I think this will hindrance to family rp, and I really doubt anyone is going to follow it. off to do some reading

[Rowan Amore]

1 minute ago, Jorden Lorefield said:

I understand that, going to look it over, for many I think this will hindrance to family rp, and I really doubt anyone is going to follow it. off to do some reading

There are also multiple threads here in the General forum..pages and pages and pages, of discussions.  We're all a bit tired of it by now but search and you shall find.

[James Starling]

2 minutes ago, Jorden Lorefield said:

I really doubt anyone is going to follow it. 

People are. 

I recently attended Camp Phantasmorgia with over 60 other kids. One of the first thing the counselors did was remind everyone about the new TOS changes because you know people come and go and may have missed it. Furthermore, there was a strict no going topless rule even for boys in addition to the obvious have pants on rule etc. Everyone followed the rule and camp was a blast. 

[Jorden Lorefield]

2 minutes ago, brodiac90 said:

People are. 

I recently attended Camp Phantasmorgia with over 60 other kids. One of the first thing the counselors did was remind everyone about the new TOS changes because you know people come and go and may have missed it. Furthermore, there was a strict no going topless rule even for boys in addition to the obvious have pants on rule etc. Everyone followed the rule and camp was a blast. 

I understand what your saying and where your coming from Brodiac90, I think that is a overreaction. I say go after the perverts that do those ugly things, but why penalize everyone else whom has done nothing wrong. 

They seem to have be reasoning from faulty logic. I just don't see them banning people for something like that, what brought this all about? Did something happen during my abeyance?

[James Starling]

9 minutes ago, Jorden Lorefield said:

I understand what your saying and where your coming from Brodiac90, I think that is a overreaction. I say go after the perverts that do those ugly things, but why penalize everyone else whom has done nothing wrong. 

They seem to have be reasoning from faulty logic. I just don't see them banning people for something like that, what brought this all about? Did something happen during my abeyance?

It's actually quite interesting to hear your response since a lot of people felt very similarly when the TOS was originally dropped. You're at a different point of the journey to us. Since May 2nd though we've had a lot of time to discuss it (sometimes too much as Rowan mentioned) and honestly, it's really not that much of a big deal. Most people have moved on with their lives and don't really care anymore. I started a thread awhile back called Ask a Child Avatar and it had a number of child avatars (including myself) answering questions of which the recent TOS changes were brought up. 

I'm not going to go into detail about what caused this, there are tonnes of threads to read if you want to. 

Here's the 251 page mega thread. It was actually crazy trying to keep up with that thing. You'd leave the forums for a few hours and there'd be another 30 pages added.  

 

Edited August 20 by brodiac90

[Midnoot]

2 hours ago, Jorden Lorefield said:

So I've been looking over the newly formed Terms of Service, regarding child avatars. Lots of changes there, returning to second life after being away for a time, and reading about it was a bit surprising, and I have a question on family RP. 

If I am engaged in family RP, giving my child a bath in the confines of my home, and they're sitting in a bath tub, role playing bath-time you’re telling me, that my child  or myself or both could have our accounts terminated for what is essentially normal nonsexual parent/Child activities. Is family role play now being regarded as something immoral?

It’s possible that I’m reading or interpreting this wrong, I surely hope that is the case, as in appearance, seems to be unfairly prejudicial. I didn't see any changes for other avatar types. I find it hard to believe second life is now banning accounts for PG, nonsexual role play.

Comments would be appreciated, as long as it’s respectful and on point. 

Maybe, a linden can comment on this issue.

I sure hope you can have your account terminated for being naked with a child . P:... We don't need to be THAT real ... I get immersion and all but dear God lol . 🤨

[discussionbot]

Yikes. 

[WeFlossDaily]

3 hours ago, Jorden Lorefield said:

you’re telling me, that my child  or myself or both could have our accounts terminated

Yes.

 

[ananoelle]

You have been in SL for 16 years I would assume you know changes happen here. You can either adopt or move on. I have also taken a look at your profile and it's not screaming "I RP as a parent" of any sorts. Actually, its empty apart form a single pick. 

This raises red flags for me.. 

You can still RP family life without bathing children naked in a bath tub.  

[Jorden Lorefield]

2 hours ago, Midnoot said:

I sure hope you can have your account terminated for being naked with a child . P:... We don't need to be THAT real ... I get immersion and all but dear God lol . 🤨

No one said anything about being naked with a child, that is gross and disturbing. What I said was a child can't be naked in a bathtub naked, get your mind out of the gutter. Since you don't understand how it works, the child is in the tub, the parent is on the outside of the tub fully dressed come on use some common since.

[Jorden Lorefield]

25 minutes ago, ananoelle said:

You have been in SL for 16 years I would assume you know changes happen here. You can either adopt or move on. I have also taken a look at your profile and it's not screaming "I RP as a parent" of any sorts. Actually, its empty apart form a single pick. 

This raises red flags for me.. 

You can still RP family life without bathing children naked in a bath tub.  

As I said I am just now returning to second life, so no shock there, if your refering to my profile being empty.

[Midnoot]

1 minute ago, Jorden Lorefield said:

No one said anything about being naked with a child, that is gross and disturbing. What I said was a child can't be naked in a bathtub naked, get your mind out of the gutter. Since you don't understand how it works, the child is in the tub, the parent is on the outside of the tub fully dressed come on use some common since.

I sure hope you can have your account terminated for having a naked child in the pron simulator that is second life . P:... We don't need to be THAT real ... I get immersion and all but dear God lol . 🤨

[Jorden Lorefield]

1 minute ago, Midnoot said:

I sure hope you can have your account terminated for having a naked child in the pron simulator that is second life . P:... We don't need to be THAT real ... I get immersion and all but dear God lol . 🤨

Second Life is not a porn simulator, if that is what you were trying to spell, just says where your mind is at I guess.

[BriannaLovey]

6 hours ago, Jorden Lorefield said:

So a child can't be naked in a bathtub wtf, since when does giving a child a bath become a tos breech? taking a bath in your underwear or what ever is not realistic at all, I think they need to revisit this, they clearly weren't thinking that clearly when they came up with that line of bull *****. If I may ask what made second life officials go on a  vendetta like this.

Shakes her head

Blame Apple and Google. LL wants to sanitize their platform in order to get it listed on the mobile cyber-cattle stores in order to get more money (as businesses tend to pursue,) and they supposedly frown on child nudity (as well as lots of other stuff in SL) quite a bit.

[Okaminingen]

Fair or not, it is what it is, I'm pretty sure this isn't gonna change just because some people want to RP bath. 

Your insistence could be considered suspicious.

[ananoelle]

8 minutes ago, BriannaLovey said:

they supposedly frown on child nudity

As they should!!! (not sexualising this)

Name one online platform that allows that kind of thing?

Quit with the creepy responses and entitled behaviour.

You can still RP bath time.. no need for realism.

[James Starling]

I have already provided solutions for immersion purposes. In addition to bathtubs that have bubble bath you can also get bubble bath BOM layers which can be worn over the mandated underwear modesty layer. So long as the child avatar is not nude (the modesty layer prevents this and is a TOS requirement) and there is no nude adults then bath time RP is still very much possible within the new TOS. 

Either comply with the new TOS or don't, that's a choice you and your family will have to make but if you get caught everyone involved will rightly be banned. 

[InnerCity Elf]

1 hour ago, brodiac90 said:

you can also get bubble bath BOM layers which can be worn over the mandated underwear modesty layer

That's awesome! But I sure hope it keeps dripping all over the bathroom, too, until child is dried off and clothed again (more clothed than modesty layer), so that the parents will nedd to dry the bathroom floor to prevent slipping and mold, because it will be more realistic! Seriously, though, love that, thank you for providing fun solutions. 

[Zalificent Corvinus]

10 hours ago, Jorden Lorefield said:

If I am engaged in family RP, giving my child a bath in the confines of my home, and they're sitting in a bath tub, role playing bath-time you’re telling me, that my child  or myself or both could have our accounts terminated

Yes, well done, you read the current ToS.

Three choices, Comply, Leave, Get Banned, choose one.

This topics been done to death in way too many threads including one that exceeded 250 pages in a couple of weeks.

There are no "get out clauses" no exceptions, no excuses.

 

10 hours ago, Jorden Lorefield said:

It’s possible that I’m reading or interpreting this wrong

Nope.

 

10 hours ago, Jorden Lorefield said:

I didn't see any changes for other avatar types

Why would there need to be any, if two ADULT avatars share a bath, that's not illegal borderline a**-play.

 

10 hours ago, Jorden Lorefield said:

Maybe, a linden can comment on this issue.

One already has, the CEO, at a town hall meeting back in April, what he said can be paraphrased as this.

"Comply, Leave, or Get Banned, choose one."

 

10 hours ago, Jorden Lorefield said:

If I may ask what made second life officials go on a  vendetta like this.

An illegal a**-play scandal, so they cracked down on Fake Child Avatars. No access to A rated regions, must avoid nudity on M rated regions, cannot be naked, EVER.

So, no more naked fake-kid bath nights with Daddy, no more Family Friend Nude Beaches with Daddy, no more borderline illegal a**-play activities with Daddy.

 

Comply, Leave, or Get Banned. Choose one.

 

 

 

[James Starling]

41 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

so they cracked down on Fake Child Avatars. 

Ignoring the whole fake child avatars thing. You can have 'fake children,' but an avatar cannot be fake due to the definition of what an avatar is, but that's just semantics. 

Anyway, while, what Zal said is correct (I'd use kinder words) I also think it's important to point out that Linden Lab also added a lot more protections for child avatars by adding a whole bunch of new AR-able offenses. So it basically comes down to this, if you're doing nothing wrong then you really have nothing to fear. 

Another good thing it brought about was the death of 'family friendly nude beaches,' which were hated by the vast majority of the kid community too. 

Edited August 20 by brodiac90