[The new ToS and something I don't think was taken into consideration by LL.]

7 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

The "panel" term probably got minted in the monster thread, maybe by accident.

I'm sure it was in the initial FAQ's, or new Rulea we were told! Could be a Mandela Effect.

[The new ToS and something I don't think was taken into consideration by LL.]

4 minutes ago, Istelathis said:

Remember the days, when Thunes was all the rage of the forums.  

Simpler times, I miss them, it feels like it was just last week.

 

IKR? Now the bear, I mean bar, has been raised.

[Oh my Gawd! - Totally unOfficial Pet Peeve Thread.]

1 hour ago, Istelathis said:

But the question I have, is would you rather run into a modded Skyrim Zali on a trail in a SL forest, or a bear trying to get you to change your cell phone service provider? You can't leave the trail, because security orbs.  

Which has sharper teeth? 

[Oh my Gawd! - Totally unOfficial Pet Peeve Thread.]

9 minutes ago, Istelathis said:

AI, bots, bears, and pictures 🙃

Peeve: I keep seeing pictures on my Facebook of AI-generated scenes with Jesus and Scarlett Johansson, usually after a plane crash or something. Oh, I see. Redditt "Beautiful Cabin Crew". Nice (sarcastically).

[Oh my Gawd! - Totally unOfficial Pet Peeve Thread.]

Just now, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Someone could start a thread on security orbs?

Peeve: It's been a minute since we had one of those!

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

2 minutes ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

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? 😅

I believe it is acceptable to sit on separate beds, and silently gaze into one another's eyes, without touching or sharing any words.  

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

2 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

NOBODY IS EVER GOING TO SAY, "OH, THAT'S OKAY."

Yet - the question was framed as if it "should be ok".  

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

1 minute ago, Rowan Amore said:

Some people do more harm to a debate than good.

"When you order an Abnormal Psychologist online from Wish"

Restated: The topic is not about "sexuality", or "psychology", or "developmental discussions".

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

8 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I need to emphasize again why AP is so offensive -- it's not because 'ewww it makes me feel icky'...it's because in such instances we are witnessing a more powerful person taking advantage of someone with less power.

Abuse of power.

This keeps coming up, but the "Why" is not really on topic.

I do however, think you are wrong in that - as I understand it -  XXX Play is "roleplay as a young person" doing things they should not - it does not imply that there is always a person abusing that power.  It is the depiction (including text) of underage activities that is the issue. NOT the "abuse of power", because there will not always be an "older" in the mix.

I could be wrong, but that is not how I read the TOS text - because I do not believe it goes into that level of VERY gory, hair-splitting detail.

"XXX Play" is bad, and as with so many things, "you know it when you see it".

If this is not clear in the TOS - ON TOPIC!! - then, perhaps the TOS needs clarified on these points also.

I hope that is "fair".

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

1 minute ago, Anna Salyx said:

I keep trying to quit this thread

You cannot quit The Thread.

It's like when Jake Gyllenhaal (as Jack Twist) said in Brokeback Mountain, "I wish I knew how to quit you."

(This is an example where a meme would have been better, but we were advised to keep it down on the memes.)

 

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

6 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

So we’re reporting child avatars for existing. Just in case they might be in IM. 

Not sure who said that, my own response was that "one child avatar could report the other" if they were BOTH in IM's and things got naughty.  The fact both are "child avatars" is supposedly irrelevant. 

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

1 minute ago, Rowan Amore said:

Engaging or trying to engage a child or child-presenting avatar in a sexually explicit conversation.

The confusing part to me is, if they are "both consenting", and "both same-age".  Doesn't make it OK.

I suppose it's not ours to "judge", but this is where we "ask" what's OK.

 

 

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

Just now, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

3 minutes 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.

IF either person reports it then..either they are both in trouble, or the person who goes "beyond the pale", from "petting" to "no-no's" could be in trouble.

I hope that sounds like a fair interpretation.  

TEXT (what people type) is reportable - even if the avatars themselves are not "doing anything bad" (animation-wise).  

I could be wrong, if "TEXT" is not seen as a "depiction".   WOW! * mind blown *

Or: It could depend on the situation.  

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

4 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Reading more about this term 'AP'....there were some nuances I didn't understand: https://prostasia.org/blog/*****-is-for-adults/

.."thanks" for sharing..

HELP!

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

2 minutes ago, Leslie Trihey said:

No per-marital hand holding either. Pre-marital hand holding is a sin.

This is patently untrue, at least ever since the Beatles.  It would never make it into the TOS.

You're making a joke!

 

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

3 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Thinking about a scenario I posed earlier, I think it's a shame that two adults can't roleplay being teenagers in love in SL. I hope if they're found in violation it would be treated less harshly via the TOS than would a much older person in sexual contact with a child or teen.

Literally, if they stick to the correctly rated Regions - and follow the TOS about "modesty" and "not wearing genitals", why would there be a problem with the TOS?

Being "In Love" has nothing to do with sexual contact. 

 

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

The TOS Changes are GOOD. 

A few Points and assumptions:

The TOS Changes are for Human avatars. Not Tinies, Dinkies, Nekos, Furries.

The TOS Changes are NOT taking away current Adult rights on "M" land.

The TOS Changes need clarification on "what constitutes a child avatar", and "how will the new rules about Modesty panels be applied", among others. These keep coming up.

 

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

1 minute ago, Dyna Mole said:

Hey gang!

Please remember to stay on topic (whatever the topic has become ...) and not get sidetracked into discussions about hair styles.  And please remember that flaming and personal attacks are not allowed. It is difficult to hold your temper in the heat of a fast-moving discussion, I know, but please do your best. 

Thanks! 

 

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

Just now, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

3 minutes 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)! 😅

I suspect you're joking because of the ongoing discussion.

I'll reframe my entire reason for bringing up "pigtails" AGAIN: It is the "entire package" that is taken into account when someone is judged as young, not just the "height". 🙂

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

2 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

12 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

IMHO!

I've yet to see anyone who uses "IMHO" on any forum, newspaper letter page, or anywhere else as ever being humble.

The intended emphasis is not on "humble"; it is on "opinion".  Thanks for any effort you make in respecting my opinion.

 

 

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

3 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

the conversation is about policing hair. Reasonable was never involved. 

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

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

2 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

WHY LL imposed the new rules is irrelevant to the discussion but people keep bringing it up.  

Agree - you, I, and a few others try to stay on top of that.  It's hard to sometimes notice someone is discussing "WHY", before that turned into a few posts.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

Just now, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

4 minutes ago, 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?

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! 😞

 

[Will SL be better as Mobile App is introduced?]

20 minutes ago, Jackson Redstar said:

2 hours ago, Flea Yatsenko said:

Retention is never good for free to play games.

https://www.businessofapps.com/insights/paying-user-and-rolling-retention-rate-benchmarks-across-game-genres-study/

https://www.mistplay.com/resources/mobile-game-retention-benchmarks

I know it's mobile but still, it's pretty relevant. Look, 30 day retention rate is 3% on average. Retention isn't an SL problem, it's a free to play problem. And SL retention is never going to be high when it's free to play and people see what it costs to make an attractive AV.

Free to play retention rates are also very low because there's no risk in trying a F2P game. It's just a download to see if you like it. And yes, sorry for calling SL a game 😅

Expand  

One could 'play' SL free forever, and Linden wouldn't make a penny, Linden is counting on new users to stick around and start spending money on shopping, maybe buying land, maybe become a premium member. Linden's issue seems to be new users never return. Learning how to use the UI, where to go, what to do, making friends all that - I just don't think a mobile app will solve

Perhaps "Basic" Mobile users will have to put up with Ads.

You know, like other Mobile games.

 

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

2 minutes ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

9 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.

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!