All Activity

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

Yay!

The head is a sphinx cat, but I wish the ears were a little smaller. I also picked up a hybrid lion head. I will try that one next.

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

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...

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 mentioned this in the How Does Your Avatar look thread, but I am making a second look for my gender neutral/Ace alt for use in visiting A rated regions. I decided to just go non-human and am trying out some different heads. I never get hit on in my normal Cora look. They are meant to be a wall-flower and not really noticed by anyone. That was the point. I went all over every rating of land and no one paid any attention to them. Perfect! Here is the Cora for G and M regions that I have always used. They went to A regions, too, but I wanted to be careful with perceived age even though it is supposed to be ambiguous with this look. Here is my first attempt at an avatar I can easily take into an Adult region. It is a fun look and completely different from anything I have tried, however, this Cora does not seem to be a wallflower. They were noticed. I only spent 30 minutes taking photos and they were hit on 3 times. I did not linger to enjoy the views and took my photo and left quickly. This defeats the purpose of this alt - which is to go unnoticed. I will keep experimenting, but still pull this one out for fun.

"The Virtual Exhibition 101 video series, part of the GBTH Mutual Aid Program, serves as a comprehensive guide to setting up exhibitions. Across its four videos, it explores various aspects of art space setup in Second Life." Read more on the blog

Is there a good height measurement device now? I just visited WelcomeHub to see how tall new avatars are. Around 6'2", it seems. I have a 6'9" avatar (Roth) and a 6'2 avatar (Brox), and the bigger one seems a better fit for SL.

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.

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

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 🫂

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.

Is mouse?

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.

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.

I've been working on finding an alternative look for my gender neutral/Ace alt because I think they can look a bit young to others even though I wanted an ambiguous age. So, for now, I will be switching to non-human for A regions. I am not entirely happy with the look, but it remains gender neutral. "G" and "M" Cora: "A" Cora:

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.

Both Keira and Tommy Linden referenced skins when discussing the modesty layers at the Governance meeting on 9/5/24. I pointed out that skins could be removed (replaced is more accurate) and therefore it would be possible to remove a modesty layer in practice. Tommy then confirmed that yes, this was possible, but would be a massive breach of TOS. You can find his and Keria's statements in my thread.

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.

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

At 9 AM SLT 12 noon EST May the 11th I will be bringing the Wheatstone Bridge not quite live two man band to the Hippy Hole Stage. We will be bringing to you a little over an hour of Hippie tunes, Classic rock, and original Wheatstone Bridge tunes featuring myself Hippie Bowman and Rusty Johnson. Come and enjoy the music and this wonderful Hippy location. Everyone is welcome! I hope to see you all! http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Shadow Falls/139/184/24 Coldwater Dailey, proprietor

Training orcs use rubber spears. SAFER

I'm thinking that if there are no straps of any kind, then they wouldn't show under any clothes. Minor avatars would still have to be covered. I get what you're saying though. If the top is built into the skin, there's no way for the avatar to become topless.

I agree as well but I don't think that it should be removed. It should be a tank top or t-shirt type of covering for babies/toddlers. Nothing would be un-acceptable and I doubt they will go for it. No disrespect for the creator but I'm sorry, that is utterly UGLY. The top is WAY too invasive and covers too much for female on top though the bottoms are ok. I sure hope that other creators get "more creative" than this. It looks like they just slapped something together and threw it on the MP.