brodiac90

You can get ones that don't take off clothes first before repalcing. I use CTS Wardrobe and you can customise the process. I tend to put on my new items of clothing individually (it's set up to be mix and match) and then once I know everything is in place I can take off the parts I want.

LL have stated they are going to release guidance on the modesty layers soon which is what sparked our original debate into how they might look so they could consider issues like breaking exisiting items of clothing. Some like the thongs etc need to be broken, but others are perfectly innocent and shouldn't be.

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).

Adding clothing first before removing old items of clothing is just part and parcel of being a kid avatar. I'm surprised people don't do that?

Yes, it's very much get with the program and be seen as a solution otherwise you're part of the problem. I don't think people understand that this is a purge. A much needed one apparently from what I've heard about some people's experiences with bad child avatars in this thread. Like ripping off a band aid though, I hope LL does this quick and hard and get's all the changes it needs to do out of the way. SL won't be the same afterwards but hopefully it will be a safer place for child avatars where they are still welcome. Who knows, if we can get rid of the bad apples, people might actually start being more positive to the good child avatars. Maybe that's just naivety and wishful thinking? It's better than dispairing though...

You didn't, but some people do and will call it discriminatory or homophobia etc. It doesn't matter if you're gay, striaght, bisexual or whatever ... if you're a child avatar then you shouldn't be engaging in any sexual activity, in any form, with anyone.

Err yes? Pretty sure it was always illegal in SL. Being homosexual doesn't exempt you from TOS. If he's 13 then he's a child avatar and shouldn't be engaging in sexual activity.

I honestly do not see how LL can ignore furry cubs given the seismic changes to child avatars in general.

As child avatar, not anymore actually. Ah had to have some humour. 'Should' and the optics are very two different things.

I'd say this says more about modern society's sexualisation of children than anything else. When I was growing up, children did not look like mini adults and clothing aimed at children was a lot more modest and innocent in nature. Didn't stop the pervs though of course....

I agree and in the long run this very well could be a very good thing for SL if it does make it harder for the pervs (both adult and child avis). It's just going to be a tough transition for those innocent parties that it affects such as myself and will likely cost lot of money, time and effort. A lot of people will decide it's not worth it and will leave (quite a few already have) and that is not a good thing if they haven't done anything wrong. Of course, if any bad actors leave because of this, then good riddance.

And the clock is ticking.

It's one of the first questions I asked. Effectively all child avatars are broken currently and unless this issue can be resolved it defacto bans child avatars. I'm hoping it just means skins but part of me thinks this is just some legal talk from LL lawyers who have no idea how SL actually works. Intent is one thing, what the policy actually states is another.

If I were them I'd make moves to very clearly label all my content as adult and include disclaimers. "This avatar is only intended for adults and adult use, using this avatar in any other way is a violation of TOS. The creator will not be held responsible for residents who violate TOS in this way."

Yes, the main gripe aimed at the modesty layer is not the idea behind it itself, but the possibility of losing years of content and money and then needing to replace it - that isn't going to be quick or easy.

Exactly, we discussed it earlier. IF that is the case then I'm potentially going to lose about 2000 items of clothing. Do the math on how much that is going to cost.

Why wouldn't they be?

I don't know why people are still saying on page 215 that kids are crying about wearing unides. If you had been following the thread you would realise this has never been an issue. We have been debating words like 'non removable,' and what that means for current skins / content etc, as well as things like what the layers should look like, and other such questions regarding what happens if an adult suddenly bomes nude near a fully clothed, modesty layered child avatar. I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not sure some of these comments are not just deliberately ignorant / designed to stoke the coals etc.

Exactly, if you don't participate in anything of the sort, as the vast majority of the kid community don't, and you don't have that sort of sick mindset, then why would you ever think you'd need to do anything different if you're already wearing BOM undies and fully clothed?

They did, BOM undies exist. LL want ones that cannot be removed - I'm not sure this is possible.

It actually does if you read the FAQ. From June 30th all child avatars are required to use one of the updated bodies/ skins. Not doing so is a direct violation of TOS.

I agree, but I'm not sure it matters? The situation is always going to be that child avatars should do everything reasonably possible to protect themselves, whether that be removing themselves from nude situations (even if someone suddenly appears) or by AR'ing offenders / blocking etc. Even if LL stated public nudity on M land wasn't allowed, I doubt it would change the requirement for child avatars to leave etc. Clarity on how Governance will react seems to be more important.

I know it is semantics but I would re-phrse it to this. - The child avatar always need to be wearing their modesty layer -If they aren't wearing any other clothes then the modesty layer is visible and they're not nude. If they are wearing clothing over the modesty layer, then the modesty layer is not visible but is still there, and yes, they are obviously not nude if they're fully clothed.

The fact that LL will be releasing guidance soon is the very reason I said we should discuss it, that way we can bring up things that LL may not have considered. A few of us were discussing what we think the layers should look like. Consensus is important in society and democracy in general. I'm sure LL want the transition to be as smooth as possible and we can help by discussing it. This thread is essentially a free focus group.

Honestly, I admire attempts to come up with new ideas, so I applaud your creativity, but in this instance I think it would be a bad idea. You'll just get borederline cases insisting they're adults and 18 because it clearly states so in this new field, despite the fact they look 16. You have to take everything into account - looks, height, profile picture, clothing style, groups, picks, how they talk and act.