Love Zhaoying

Actually, you can't edit previous posts after a certain time limit. (There are cases where people "rush" to fix their posts before the time limit expires, or the post can't be edited after that.) So, the thread being "shuffled" shouldn't really make a difference.

Your sense of humor is detectable sometimes!

And, that the adults don't have to rush to dress or leave simply because a child entered.

I've thought of making a Zalicifent "dictionary" for my own use, with "normal words" vs. "Zal words" and some guess as to whether they are "positive" or "negative", "for" or "against", "sincere" or "sarcasm". Because honestly, at this point I cannot tell - and when I ask am told that I must think she is lying!

You quoted US? I feel more special than usual. Thanks!

You can draw anything you like. /me pats the chair beside her inviting you to sit right beside Einstein's ghost. * licks his paw and obsessively tries to tame Einstein's mane *

So, it's pictures you take in Second Life and save for later that look bad? The one you posted above looked OK to me.

It's very strange that people read the TOS, FAQ, etc. and their response is that it won't be followed, LL is somehow lying, the Governance team won't do what they say they'll do. If someone distrusts LL that much, why be here?

I'm glad you are amused. If you did a poll, I am absolutely certain that most people would say they "didn't get" an email about some change, or about their RezDay, etc.

Got it, to me the ambiguity is there still, I suppose in the general question "is it OK for the child avatar to 'stick around' an area where there is ongoing 'random nudity' of a non-sexual nature. Signs point to 'yes', but assumptions in the thread are mostly 'no'.

Most people I know would never do anything to warrant an AR in the first place. However, consider that the incidence rate of emails getting lost, never delivered, sent to SPAM, missed due to that email not being checked regularly (people often use unique emails per login), means that it is highly likely such emails get sent but not seen. This is 2+2 easy to see.

I don't see any way to interpret that except, "it was ok to be there" (assuming it was a Mature region). The "exposure" to adult avatar nudity was "incidental" to (coincided with) the child avatar being somewhere the nudity was "not unexpected", the emphasis of the FAQ being on the "picture". If the child avatar didn't belong there, the FAQ would have been totally different, you'd think. But, the rating and expectation of nudity are assumed, since not part of the scenario.

The emphasis on "loss of investment" doesn't sufficiently convince me in the arguments presented here. However, if the threat of "losing one's investment" causes them to follow the rules, then great! Whatever it takes.

I thought this was odd when I read it previously, because it stands out as the only "negative example", in the middle of the list.

I think it needs clarification. @Rowan Amore, do you recall clarification of this part in the FAQ's?

Thanks, I was JUST about to post a fresh copy of the new rules above when I saw your post. You bring up EXACTLY what I thought when I previously read it, thank you! I totally agree, with my own spin on it being: "engaging or participating" do not mean the same thing as "merely being present".

Copying it yet again for the sake of it (from the link at the start of the thread): https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Clarification_of_policy_disallowing_ageplay I only added the outer quotes and underlined a few parts to separate sections. "Linden Lab is committed to the safety of children and has zero tolerance towards any material that features or promotes child sexual exploitation. The sexualization/sexual exploitation of children is strictly prohibited. This includes but is not limited to the following: Visual depictions of a child or child avatar engaging in sexually explicit or sexually suggestive acts. Sharing fantasies about or promoting engagement in child sexual exploitation. Sexualized commentaries about or directed at child-presenting avatars and/or any individual that identifies as a child. Links to third-party sites that host child sexual exploitation material. Expressing a desire to obtain materials that feature child sexual exploitation. Recruiting, advertising or expressing an interest in a sex act involving a child, or in harboring and/or transporting a child for sexual purposes. Sending sexually explicit media to a child or child-presenting avatar. Engaging or trying to engage a child or child-presenting avatar in a sexually explicit conversation. Trying to obtain sexually explicit media from a child or child-presenting avatar, or trying to engage a child or child-presenting avatar in sexual activity through blackmail or other incentives. Identifying alleged victims of childhood sexual exploitation by name or image. Promoting or normalizing sexual attraction to minors as a form of identity or sexual orientation. Residents presenting as Child Avatars shall be prohibited from the following: Entering any Region rated Adult. Residents must change to a non-child or non-childlike avatar to visit Adult rated regions. Engaging or participating in any event or location where nudity and/or sexual activity is present, encouraged and/or expected. Wearing genital/sexual attachments including clothing, attachments or HUDs created for and/or worn by child avatars to indicate genitalia, whether visible or not. 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. Child avatars where the focal point of the body is on the breasts, pelvis, or buttocks Participation in lewd or sexual acts in which one or more of the avatars appears to represent minors (or the depiction of such acts in images, video, textures, or text). Content for Child Avatars being sold inworld and/or on Marketplace must comply with the General Content Rating and adhere to the following: Content intended for Child Avatars must be listed as General maturity. Content intended for Child Avatars must not be sexual and/or suggestive in nature. No Adult or Moderate keywords in Marketplace listings on Child avatar content. 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."

Sure, sure - if you are banned you lose your investment. I get that part. But without more details - and assuming it is written much like the Medium article, I'm not going to read it - there's no guessing even whether they were just naked (which would be a surprise as a cause to be "banned from Second Life" based on the new TOS) or if something else was going on.

Very true though as a couple of the Reddit moderators pointed out, the story was becoming so consistent among posted threads, that it is becoming hard to discount that there is much platform banning going on. Even so, my actual point is - we do not know WHY they were banned from Second Life, what they were actually doing at the time they were "banned" from Second Life, if they had multiple infractions leading up to it, etc. Assume for the sake of argument these weren't just "first time short and/or nude where they should not be".

I don't see a way to read that without forbidding merely being present at a location where nudity is occurring. They could fence that off with more language somehow specifying that it takes more than being in the vicinity to "engage" or "participate" in a "location". Thing is, I think there are a number of participants in this thread (and other residents) primed to read it to forbid child avatars anywhere spontaneous nudity might happen. Ok, that's a different version than I remember seeing quoted (whether I saw the old version, or some other interpretation or "edition"). Interesting to me, at least, that the discussion at that time dove into the assumptions I listed earlier. ETA: It's the same version, I just missed "engaging or participating" this time. Thanks!

Ok, then. We weren't there, so like all similar situations we only know one side of the story.

Just to clarify, some users say "banned" when they were merely banned from a region by the owners.

The TOS I saw quoted had some ambiguity, child avatars were not allowed near Adult activities where adults would be naked, etc. And, child avatars are not allowed to be naked, period (helped by the modesty layer). Are we certain that child avatars are not allowed near non-sexual nude adults on M-rated land? Some discussions leaned towards that being allowed.

I've seen lots of positive improvements in this thread over the past 20 pages or so: - Fewer people saying, "they cannot follow the new rules" - Fewer people saying, "they will leave because of the new rules" - Fewer people saying, "the new rules are not fair" - Far Fewer people making excuses for those who would break the rules - Almost no people making excuse for those who want to have "Slex" with Child avatars (whether consensual or not) I think the new Rules are really going to help!

"Woody, just burn it off. Touch the torch, then touch your Freenis."