All Activity

Yup, a tiny clarification would help SO much. People wouldn't need to fear whether their bodies / skins get updated, etc.

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. https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Clarification_of_policy_disallowing_ageplay Please stop and read the F'ing TOS and related pages

No where does it say the child avatar MUST wear them. If I missed that, someone show.me. Even when asked in the FAQ, the reply was the same. They did not say they must wear anything only that they couldn't be naked. An oversight? Perhaps but wording is important.

clod hopping

Gee, Madsi, you still do not get or do not want to get the reason for all this. I really am tired of explaining that to you all over again. Maybe one explaination: Private Sims with Ban lines cannot be visited by nosey people who take screenshots and take logs and recordings. Public places are different. OK?

It's not gaslighting to say that the term is too broad to be used in a meaningful way as part of the TOS. Nobody is trying to twist the meaning of the word to skirt any rules here, we're just saying that the TOS needs to be more specific so that people know what's expected of them. It works both ways, the more definitive the wording of the TOS is the harder it is for people to claim they just "misunderstood".

Thanks for quoting this again, people keep conflating the new modesty panel requirement and the "must not be nude" requirement to mean, "must always wear modesty panels". I suspect the truth of the "modesty panel" requirement will be something simple like, "creators are required to supply modesty panels as an OPTION so that avatars will always have a way to not be naked". In other words, "free underwear" that you don't have to wear, but owning it means you don't have any excuse to be naked.

It would be good practice to just alpha out the chest and pelvis in addition to the modesty layers, that way no one can ever see those areas.

Im sorry this is so confusing for people. I believe what you are saying is an exception to the rule, and arguing it. But in general everyone knows what sexualization means, and if they don't they need to look it up, sorry. For some to gaslight me and others on these words and others is really mind-snapping, and perhaps that is part of their game. That I and others are the crazy ones... you know how that works..

Yes. Being fully naked. The next part is for content creators regarding modesty panels. No where does it say...child avatar must wear a specific skin or body or use the modesty panels. They just can't be naked.

Still won't change a thing, other than deprive them of a source of revenue. The bad guys will still do the exact same thing but now they will just stick to private sims. So, unless the lab wants to stick a linden in every sim on the grid 24/7, my point still stands.

If it would not be that it would be something else. Language never can be 100 percent bulletproof. See "militia" in the American constitution.

No, it's covered, please read https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Clarification_of_policy_disallowing_ageplay 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.

I'd say it's a deeply subjective term since we're all individuals and while one person may consider something sexual for whatever reason another might not associate with sex at all. If there was a collective agreement on what is or isn't sexual then we wouldn't have kinks. I used the word when speaking about my personal opinion but I'd hope that LL would be a lot more specific when wording the TOS.

"After nearly five years of providing a vibrant and unique Second Life experience, "[Octopussy] goes Cuba" is set to close its doors on May 30th, 2024. Owners Rosinchen (fleurlarosa) and Will Thos (willkinthos) announced their decision with a heartfelt message expressing their gratitude to the over 124,000 visitors who have enjoyed this one-of-a-kind sim." Read more on the blog

You can get ones that don't take off clothes first before repalcing. I use CTS Wardrobe and you can customise the process. I tend to put on my new items of clothing individually (it's set up to be mix and match) and then once I know everything is in place I can take off the parts I want.

.nostrip

LL have stated they are going to release guidance on the modesty layers soon which is what sparked our original debate into how they might look so they could consider issues like breaking exisiting items of clothing. Some like the thongs etc need to be broken, but others are perfectly innocent and shouldn't be.

There is nothing in the rules that specifically says child avatars must wear modesty panels. They just can't be naked. Creators of child specific bodies and skin must include those modesty panels. Even in the FAQs, it's kind of ambiguous Q: I already have a child avatar that does not have a built in modesty layer. Can I still use that since I purchased it already? A: No. Going forward, child avatars will be prohibited from being fully nude. Why did they not just answer...No, going forward, child avatars must have a modesty panel. One of those things that they'll need to clarify since THE major issue for most. ETA..from the actual policy page and what child avatars are prohibited from doing... 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.

You say subjective, but we have an objective definition: sexualize which refers to sexual . How are these words subjective, not agreed upon, and why would LL have to define it in their TOS, since the words are already defined. Not busting your *****s, you're just disappointing me with this. to make sexual : endow with a sexual character or cast make sexy: adorning with provocative and adult dress

Lets hope @Linden Lab @Keira Linden check the actual assets against screenshots included with abuse reports. Cache poisoning and texture substitution are a thing. You might not be naked. But that's doesn't stop someone making you naked with a little effort.

My kids used wardrobe with RLV

In theory. The theory is dust once that child Avi is rich enough to pay for an own parcel where it can change, knows how to erect privacy and ban lines and/or an instantly kicking security orb. Hehe.

Thanks, it would help to have some idea of what's expected in order to work out how we could accommodate existing content so residents lose as little of their inventory as possible while ensuring all of it can be worn in a way that complies with the TOS.

Maybe only kids need to worry about it, is my honest answer. Of course, you can't do it in RL so it may not occur to a lot of people to do it that way. In the context of SL, if you do it that way, nobody would know if somehow you forgot your modesty layer (or it "broke" or whatever). Just an idea..