[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

2 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

In fact, most of the discussion in this looooong thread has been among about twenty people. Most people in SL don't come to the forums at all. They don't have any idea what people have been talking about here. (Or care, probably)

I have heard from a couple of friends who don't post on the forums about their concerns and have mentioned to a few others who have short avatars and are into the whole kawaii fashion thing about the changes to TOS (the latter had no idea about the changes and what they might mean for them personally).

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

1 minute ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

Nope, not only are they still doing sexual stuff, they are in proximity to other doing sexual stuff, and quite possibly nude too, that's a Triple AR hat-trick!

Extra bonus permaban!

Well best of luck to the governance team member that tries to sort through the (complete lack of) evidence for that AR I guess?

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

Just now, Persephone Emerald said:

Playing a child, a teen or an anime character is not my thing, but it is for many people. My alt Alycia sometimes dresses as a doll, but I'm not going to put her in an adult situation or setting while wearing a child-like doll avatar. 

I joked many pages back about hentai sims with anime characters, but this is a real thing in SL. The people who are into that are going to have to take a hard look at whether that kind of RP is worth the risk of losing their accounts. 

I suspect there may be some people in-world who have no idea that the new TOS changes may even apply to them in the perceptions of other residents.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

11 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

13 minutes ago, ErwinVonVlotho said:

Of course they can roleplay being teenagers in love. They just can't roleplay being teenagers in THE SAME bed - and nor should they.

Fixed that for you.

The question then becomes, if they're in separate beds are they allowed to "roleplay" with themselves as long as they don't talk about it? 😅

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

1 minute ago, Luna Bliss said:

So they could be sexual in text and not break any rules?

That, I suspect, would be a very slippery slope.

I'd say that since they are both playing characters who identify as being non-adult and under the age of consent, LL would take a very dim view of any type of sexual content that they engage in, whether it be in-world actions or merely typing, it's all on LL's platform.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

1 minute ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Hair is 'policed' so much in RL, I assume it is policed the same in SL.

Perhaps, but it's not like LL are likely to add "hair policies" to the TOS any time soon (or ever)! 😅

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

Just now, Love Zhaoying said:

Sorry - me using all caps for 'reasonable' in referring to myself, was intended to be 'self-deprecating' irony (humor).  I hoped most people would get that! 😞

 

I didn't but if it's any consolation it did make me laugh when you pointed it out.

(I probably wouldn't have hit the laugh button regardless, it's used far too passive-aggressively a lot of the time and I wouldn't want to offend you!)

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

Just now, Love Zhaoying said:

It's only proof that people will argue about anything.  REASONABLE people - like me - know what pigtails are, and that they are "more common" on younger females.  IMHO!

[highlighting mine]

And I'm sure in your humble opinion you're representative of "REASONABLE people", however are you really so sure that everyone else shares that opinion?

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

3 minutes ago, Flower Caerndow said:

Wow - bringing up legal issues is off-topic but several pages of pigtails is so on-topic?

This is beyond ridiculous

 

The subject of how avatar appearance will affect any decision governance makes is relevant but yeah, a multi-page debate about what pigtails are is a little extreme.

This (seemingly inconsequential) ongoing argument does illustrate one thing though, the vast difference in perceptions and individual definitions of these things is clearly contentious and just because someone views their avatar a certain way is no guarantee that others won't have an entirely different perception.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

7 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Since I brought up Furries:

Why WOULDN'T the new TOS changes apply the same to Tinies and Dinkies? I guess they stay under the radar if "bad things" are happening in their communities.

My on-topic point for the TOS changes is: We focus on human "child avatars". But there are lots of "non-human" avatars that have "children".

 

Given the commotion their current TOS changes have caused here I don't see LL ever extending them to the furry community, just as I don't really expect them to place any further restrictions on anyone else.

Now, if the TOS changes had been announced and this thread was just a handful of pages with only a few people raising concerns while the rest celebrated and jeered at them then who knows, maybe LL would be thinking "well that was easy, who's next?"

ETA: Just kidding, of course LL would never do that!  I'm sure they love every single one of us and lay awake at night worrying if we'll be there when they log on again in the morning!

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

10 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

True, but the entire 'presentation' would be considered, as well as what the user is doing with the avatar.

Noone saying that piggie tails on a gray-haired wrinkled old lady makes her a child.

Seriously people gotta stop playing dumb, or at least stop panicing.

I don't think people are "playing" dumb so much as they're uninformed, because LL have yet to inform us of the precise meaning behind certain things.

You're right that governance will most likely consider multiple factors but without knowing exactly what factors and how much they may impact LL's decision there's bound to be a lot of confusions and questions.

For example, if an avatar is perceived as "under-aged" by someone so they file a report what other criteria are LL going to consider.  Does the fact that they occasionally call their partner "Daddy" matter (and will LL go to the lengths of finding out they were wearing an eight foot tall amazonian avatar at the time)?  How much impact does describing yourself as "sweet and innocent" in your profile have on LL's decision, what other items of clothings will be a contributing factor and if so how much?

Without knowing exactly what LL will and will not take into consideration and exactly what their perception of under-age behaviour and appearance is, people have very little option but to debate endlessly while they await further clarification.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

1 minute ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I know you were being facetious but..

If Nekos / Furries end up exactly as "wholesome" as Tinies and Dinkies (but hopefully a lot less creepy), that is fine with me!

In fact: I would vote for applying the TOS equally to ALL avatar "species". HAH!

 

I'm glad you got the point and didn't take my comment completely seriously.

And in response to something you said in this thread a lot of pages back, if LL did try something similar to this with the furry community I'd be in that thread saying exactly the same thing and bringing up exactly the same objections too, because no matter what niche group is under fire they're still a part of the SL community as a whole, our community!

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

3 minutes ago, Ayashe Ninetails said:

We'd need LL to clarify whether or not they're included.

This is a good point!

Of course it's tricky since there is no age of consent for animals? 🤔

Nor is there any age at which ***** is considered legal...

So I guess it may just be safest for LL to ban neko/furry sex entirely?!  

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

I've been trying to think of ways in which residents using child avatars could keep using existing skins without body creators needing to add additional polygons as a modesty layer.

I initially thought that simply separating the necessary polygons from their default UV and remapping them to a tiny, pixel sized, corner of the UV space then assigning a separate material to them so they could be tinted but not textured.  The problem with that is, even though it would allow them to use their existing skins and would allow them to wear existing mesh clothing without having a modesty layer poking through it, it would also prohibit them from using any clothing layer/BOM items since the parts of the body that aren't correctly UVd would not display the texture for system layers.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

1 minute ago, Codex Alpha said:

Ok, so how should they clarify 'sexualizing' child avatars then. Have any suggestions?

If I had the answer to that question this thread would be a lot shorter, but that's one of the reasons why we're having a discussion.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

Just now, Codex Alpha said:

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.

 

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".

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

1 minute ago, Codex Alpha said:

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.

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.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

Just now, brodiac90 said:

No, the last time we discussed the issue we were debating how they might look. We basically agreed that the layer should be significant enough to prevent extremely skimpy items of clothing like g-strings, thongs and thin bikinis etc, but not so long that it breaks ballet leotards, babies onsies and ordinary swimwear that is already modest etc. 

We agreed that for the lower part a full brief would be best since that would be unisex for both boys and girls, and that both boys and girls might have to wear some sort of tube vest around the chest area (child avis all use the same avatar so there is no real way to distinguish between boys and girls at the avatar level). 

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.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

5 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

"Free-balling" is a colloquial/slang term meaning, "without underwear" (applied to males).

Not to be confused with "Freefallin" by Tom Petty (RIP)!

On a more topic-related note do we have any previews of what the new modesty panels are meant to look like yet?

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

1 minute ago, Love Zhaoying said:

That is unfortunately part of the problem with the new TOS, one can only explain it according to one's personal opinion / interpretation, thus the need for all the FAQ's.

Well I wasn't really thinking in terms of the TOS to be honest, it was my own personal opinion on where the line is for me, I fully accept that said line will vary according to the individual and isn't representative of LL's current TOS.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

1 minute ago, Coffee Pancake said:

Children's beauty pageants are a thing. A day time TV thing. "sexualize" is far to broad a term to have any practical application.

The rules prohibit nudity, accessing adult locations, engaging in or actively soliciting sexual activity, that's the line.

Everything up to that line must be ok, and that's going to include a lot of stuff some will object to.

Again, I agree.  It's for LL to determine exactly what the rules are and they are currently exactly as you stated them.

I did state in an earlier post that you responded to that

29 minutes ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

In my personal opinion I think there is nothing wrong with wanting to roleplay as a child or teen in SL, but I draw the line at people roleplaying as a child "trying to be an adult".

(bolding mine)

but I probably should have made it more clear that I was still speaking from that position, rather than attempting to explain the current TOS, sorry!

 

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

4 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

Childhood is about trying on  different shades of adulthood, that's a corner stone of our entire society. We teach our kids to literally try it and see if they like it, and fake it till they make it. However, irrespective of what can and does happen IRL, it doesn't and shouldn't extend to include sexual activities here.

Everything else should be allowed though.

I did a lot of dumb stuff in my teens. i was not the prim and proper well behaved child my mother wanted. That was the point.

 

 

Yes, as I said in my subsequent post, accurately roleplaying as a child will of course have an element of rebellion and "wanting to be an adult", but the line should be drawn at any activities that sexualize the character they're portraying.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

Just now, Sammy Huntsman said:

I don't see a problem with that whatsoever. The problem isn't these child avatars, but them trying to be adult. 

Yes, and to clarify, I understand that if you're role-playing as a teen then you may want to rebel, etc. (as teens tend to do) but I think that can be done without resorting to wearing revealing outfits or acting in an "inappropriate" manner.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

Just now, Sammy Huntsman said:

This is why you teach kids in RL to be themselves and don't feel pressured to be like everyone else. Than to Child avatars, just be themselves. They don't need to be like everyone else and look like everyone else. 

Well you can try to teach them, but the media influencers seem to hold more sway these days, but the difficulties of RL parenting aren't really up for discussion so moving on...

In my personal opinion I think there is nothing wrong with wanting to roleplay as a child or teen in SL, but I draw the line at people roleplaying as a child "trying to be an adult".

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

3 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

lol are you saying if you disagree with the new rules you are a secret pedo?

Wonderful, second life is disintegrating already 😂

Uh no, I'm saying that if you disagree with the idea of ridding Second Life of people who like to sexualize children then you're one of the people that LL (and I suspect the vast majority of residents) would like to remove from the platform or at least strongly encourage to leave?!