ErwinVonVlotho

But you won't be nude, because you'll have your modesty layer on. That will protect you from anyone trying to make a fraudulent AR against you.

So you agree that child avis shouldn't be naked, and you agree that child avis shouldn't be on adult sims. Those are exactly the things the TOS update bans, so why do you have a problem with it? What kinds of roleplay do you think will be restricted by the new rules?

The only things it limits are being nude or going to adult land as a child avatar. Do you have a problem with those limits? If so, why?

You're not listening. What anyone thinks and how sick it may be is not the issue. The issue is that LL don't want screenshots of naked child avatars in the news, and they are making it as difficult as possible for anyone to have a naked child avatar without just banning them completely. The modesty layer is happening. That decision has been made and it isn't going to be walked back. Where we are now is that the more people try to claim the modesty layer, nudity rules and ban from adult regions and content are unfair/excessive/impossible/easily circumvented, the more likely LL are to just throw up their hands and say "OK, you convinced us, this is too complicated. No more child avatars."

Roleplaying? No. Nudity? Yes. Sex? It always has been.

What's irrational about it? A rather dubious article talked about a**play on SL. For LL, the nightmare scenario is that this is followed up by a lurid story in a tabloid newspaper, complete with screenshots of naked kids bouncing on daddy's lap. LL's response is to make it as hard as possible for child avatars to be naked, and firmly establish that from now on any child avatar who is naked has gone to some lengths to deliberately break the rules. This seems perfectly rational to me.

But they can ban them, any time they like. All LL have to do is say "Let's be realistic. This is an adult platform and most of its users are doing it like they do on the Discovery Channel. No more kid avis." They're not doing that though.

You're child avatars. You're required to be modest because you're pretending to be children. We are not.

Why? Non-sexual public nudity is allowed in moderate regions, and sex is allowed behind closed doors, so why should we have to wear a modesty layer? Moderate regions are 18-rated. The onus is on child avi users to work around that and avoid anything adult-themed. Refusal to accept that will just end with child avis being banned from M as well as A, because there are a lot more people who like to get naked in their bedroom on a moderate sim than there are child avi users.

LL don't care what fantasies people have. They honestly don't give the tiniest fraction of a microdamn. Their corporate lawyers are not worried about people having fantasies. What they're worried about is some newspaper getting its hands on images of naked children made on SL, and the solution is making it as difficult as possible to make a child avatar look naked. Just telling people not to do it isn't enough, so the idea of saying "Child avis must wear clothes" and leaving it at that is a complete non-starter. It simply isn't going to happen, no matter how many people plead for it. LL need to make sure that you can't have a naked child avi without knowingly going through a non-trivial and explicitly forbidden process that LL has actively made difficult - because as soon as someone starts that process they are the bad guy and LL is a victim, not an enabler. Yes, there will be ways to defeat the modesty layer, but anyone who does so will automatically and deliberately be violating TOS - and, if a pic should surface somewhere, LL can hold their hands up and say "Well, we tried to stop them doing that."

I'm not saying you do it. I'm saying this line of argument looks very like a defence of those who do.

That's probably because you specifically said ""the child then carried on looking for love in all the wrong places". It's hard to interpret that as anything but a reference to a**play, really.

My feeling is that it doesn't matter who does the initiating or leading; if someone with a child avatar takes part in a**play they're a willing participant, and "immersion" is no excuse. "Looking for love in all the wrong places" is a great line for a song, but a terrible look in this discussion.

The problem I have with this comment is that "the child then carried on looking for love in all the wrong places" means exactly the same as "the adult pretending to be a child then looked for more a**play opportunities". You've mentioned this several times now. You're not doing anything to reduce the perception that some users of child avatars are very much part of the problem.

I think we all know LL don't really care about the 17-20 range.