brodiac90

You could try Tweeneedoo.

Awww it's a ducky look! In the middle of the carpet!

Yeah intent seems to be a very important driving factor. They mentioned that when discussing similar situations for child avatars when accidentally visting adult regions. Maybe a dress code is unworkable but currently General sims are a joke with how little they are policed.

General sims only require that your private parts be covered so technically a thong or g-string and the skimpest of bras that only coveres the bare minimum would be following the rules if not the spirit which is often described as what you would do in front of your grandma or a grade school class. The rules really should be updated to fit the spirit with some sort of modest dress code for General sims. @Madi Melodious I'm sure if Madi can make a panic button for kids then the opposite could be made for adults who don't want to enter G regions.

It probably doesn't help that I've worked in education and on policy documents and politics etc before so I always read into what is said and the thought process behind it. Sometimes what isn't said can be just as telling too. I would not at all be surprised if behind closed doors LL had not considered just banning child avatars altogether. I imagine it must have come up at a few meetings. The fact they haven't probably means people argued against it which I am truly grateful for.

While you're here, Keria, could you perhaps clear up the question and answer for toddler avatars and the chest modesty layer? The Question makes it seem like you guys are only talking about toddlers and infants (which you mentioned at the May 9th Governance meeting) but the answer implies it could also apply to older prepubscent avatars. Is the exemption for the chest modesty layer only for toddler avatars or anyone under 18 who does not have any female attributes on the chest?

Hi Keira thanks for the reply! We were discussing the modesty layers for toddlers specifically though and how it is worded.

Worrying about your continued existence in SL is a silly concern? We know now but we didn't at the time. Ty for the gaslight.

I get the anger at the female modesty layer for older prepubescent children, but what you're effectively arguing for is the disadvantagement of those presenting as boy avatars to make it 'fair,' when many boys would regard that as unfair too. Also, from LL's perspective they care more about the optics than they do immersion or how close things are to reality. You said it yourself, SL is not RL. Now imagine the worst image you can of an adult and say a 8 year old girl avatar. One with panties and the other with panties and say a tube top. I'd wager the first looks way worse from a PR stand point then the second. Of course, we all know the pervs will just use illegal skins but LL need to be able to say to Apple, PayPal and Google this is what we've put in place. Like any business, risk, HR and H&S are there to protect the business from lawsuits, not people.

I understand that. I was talking about the thought process behind including a date in the statement, not the timing itself. Dates are qualifiers e.g free coffee today (01/06/24) when you buy x

Depends if it's residential or commercial. For example, you could make the argument that a Motel (a business) that is used for adult hook ups is actually an adult business and therefore promoting adult activities which is very much Adult rated. There could be other unique examples across the 9 sims but I don't know them so it's hard to judge. If it's just the land owner being cautious then I kind of get that as annoying as it is. That's a resident issue though, LL set out how the ratings should be used but it's up to land owners how they use them. Could also just be laziness. "I don't want to have to police M and A sims so they're all A....."

I'm not sure I like the date. Reading between the lines, the addition of a date implies this may not be the case in the future. Otherwise why date the statement? I would really hope that LL are not considering banning all child avatars and that this is just some sort of Ill thought phrasing. The way they have been interacting with the community of late would seem to suggest the latter, but I wanted to point it out nevertheless. I would prefer. "Child avatars are allowed in Second Life but there are certain rules and restrictions that apply."

That's interesting. The question specifically references toddlers and infants but as you said is worded in such a way that it could also potentially include older prepubescent children. Perhaps LL should clarify this if that is not their intent? I got the impression @Keira Linden was Only talking about toddlers and infants at the May 9th Governance meeting. The fact the images show the older girl still covered would reinforce this. 14:55] Keira Linden: I hear you all on the modesty layer on infants, and is something I am willing to consider, but I can't promise that any change will be made at this time.

Perhaps it's because it's a Motel?

Aww I hope the possum was okay.

Yeah I've not personally checked for obvious reasons but the last time my mom visited the adult group joiner with fully naked breasts in General land, it was still there and it was reported over a week ago. Is advertising a group with ADULT in big letters on the media while showing a woman's fully nude breasts not considered 'inappropriate content for the region setting,' for a General sim then?

Yeah if we hadn't said anything nothing would have changed. For example, it was only the discussion about what would happen to a fully clothed modesty layered child avatar if they were approached by a nude adult in the mega thread that sparked that addition to the FAQ. Similarly, if the whole bras for toddlers wasn't brought up in the forums and at the Governance meeting on May 9th I doubt that would have changed either. Please don't retroactively deminish our worries and concerns now some of them have been addressed since at the time they were perfectly genuine worries.

Also, in the excitement of mentioning no chest layer for female toddlers, was the any mention of the back of the chest modesty layer being optional for older females?

I wouldn't hold your breath. I'm kind of amazed they changed the rule for toddler avatars.

Thanks for everything you do @Tommy Linden I can really tell you have been listening to everyone. It's kind of freaky to discuss things in the forums and then see things in the FAQ but good all the same. Like Madi said, big hugs!

Yes, the updated FAQ is very good, lots of typos though!

Oh that's true. I wasn't thinking about that ..... I wans't thinking about that at all.....

You're not a kid anyway! At least not in physical appearance.....

If I'm reading it correctly, it also means even if Tweenster don't update, so long as I wear BOM underwear (which I do anyway), then I should be complaint? That's how I was reading it. if that's true then that's very good news and means I won't be losing lots of lindens.

I need to read throguh it carefully but that's the first thing that jumped out at me. Also noticed the BOM part but @Rowan Amore beat me to it.