brodiac90

@Love Zhaoying My feelings are complicated. Do I broadly agree with the rule changes? Yes. Am I conerned about what it might mean for content I already own? Absolutely. If Tweenster does not update then I'm going to lose about 2000 items of clothing costing me thousands of RL dollars. I'll also need to invest in another avatar and clothing, say Tweeneedoo (the closest in size). So, in some ways, a lot of things are still up in the air for the time being. Do I understand the need for the modesty layers? Yes, does it make me feel any less dirty or ashamed that they're necessary? No, they're a constant reminder that sick things go on in SL and even though I've done nothing wrong it still feels icky.

Yep, which is why a lot of child avatars now feel as though they're second class citizens. Technically we're allowed on M land but it really depends on what's happening there. Even if the venue we were in was perfectly fine when we arrived, if things change then the onus is on us to leave. That is also technically true of G rated land too, although the offenders would at least get into trouble there.

I know of over 100 child avatars on a personal level who are either upset or concerned and I wouldn't even consider myself someone who is at the centre of the community. People who own things like Starries or Toddleedoo would have a much better idea. As for those who have left. I know of at least 5 who have specifically said this is why I'm leaving. I beleive @Madi Melodious knows more and has a better idea of how many people have cancelled premiums or closed sims. It's not an insignificant amount though.

I know many people who are upset, and know of some who have left or have cancelled premiums etc. I cancelled my premium on May 2nd when we knew less and because of all the uncertainty. I may renew at some point in the future but that entirely depends on how things are going forward.

I think the reality is that most of these places will just become family-friendly non-nude beaches as you said. They'll do whatever they can to just barely toe the line in public and still do the sick stuff they want to do in private.

I can understand the confusion. These places do still exist but they shouldn't as they're breaking TOS. This place needs reporting. It's the first one I found and was pretty close to the top of the list. I.e. not hard to find.

Not only will they not be allowed to be nude, but they won't be allowed near nude adults. I mean tell me you're banning family nude beaches without telling me you're banning family nude beaches.

They're not though. TOS specifically forbids child avatars being in the presence of nudity. The so called 'family friendly' nude beaches that encouraged adult and child avatars to be nude together are now 100% illegal. Thankully so.

Those places just need closing down, everyone would be wise to avoid them.

It's what you're doing and where that most matters. Were you dancing at a very adult club in A land when suddenly a child avatar appears? You've done nothing wrong, you're on adult land and child avatars are not allowed on adult land. Were you on a nude beach on M land when suddenly a child avatar appears? Child avatars are allowed on M land, but again you've done nothing wrong since TOS forbids child avatars from being in the presence of nudity, especially where it's expected. You go onto G land where fully clothed, modesty layered child avatars are hanging around and decide to take off all your clothes and put on all your favourite adult attachments. Yeah, LL are going to throw the book at you....

Whether LL chooses to enforce the rules or not is up to them, but they do have the option to enforce them now.

That's not true. The only part of TOS that isn't immediately enforceable from May 2nd is the modesty layers which come into effect on June 30th. Everything else is already live.

I'd be careful what you say about companies and Lindens on a public forum. You might want to include words like 'alleged.' There are other options, although you will probably find it harder to achieve what you want. Tweeneedoo is the biggest version of the Toddleedoo family of avatars. They have TD baby, TD Kid and Tweeneedoo which is for preteens. You'd probably be able to make an avatar say between 6-10 rather than Tweenster where it's more the 8-14 age range.

At the meeting they clarified that but also: What age the policy applies to. Who it applies to - the mention of furries and those in the anime community was new. They also clarified whether people could have child avatars and adult avatars on the same account or not. They also explained how they look at accidental TPs. These forums are not the only place that I get my information. I also look at Reddit and of course talk to people in world. Other than yourself, I know of one person ( I spoke to them in world) who was upset that they'll now have to move their family home from adult land. Do I think that's rubbish for them in the short term? Yes, will it probably a good thing in the long run? I think so. I can understand that. The skin I wear I've had for a long time and I'll be sad when I have to change it for one with modesty layers, not because I disagree with the modesty layers, but because I've become attached to that particular skin. I've also accepted that I may end up having to use a different child avatar body if Tweenster does not update. I think the 'arguably' part is a problem for you though. You may not identify as a child, but thinking back, how do you feel about the fact that others around you may have seen you as a child?

Being more specific probably would have offered more clarity, but it would have have made the new policy more complicated and could potentially leave loop holes and things for people to exploit, so I can see why LL want the policy to be as simple as possible. LL were not clear at all at first but I don't think you can say the same for Tommy and Kiera at the meeting. Not everyone agreed with that they said, but you cannot argue that what they said was pretty clear. It's an opinion that is pretty much universal. Barring a few exceptions, I've not heard anyone disagreeing with the ban on child avatars in adult land. The whole thing is a major inconveinece to everyone who already followed the rules and never did anything wrong. Perhaps you could explain to me why you want to be in adult land as a teen avatar though? Or if not you specifically, why you think they should be in general? So what you're saying is, people who may have done things they shouldn't have been doing are now concerned they might face consequences for doing things they shouldn't have been doing.

Why, what were your preconcieved notions?

People discussing borederline cases is good because it will allow the owners of those avatars to make informed decisions going forward if they want to ensure they're percieved the way they intended. I suspect 'borderline,' cases, by their very nature will make up only a small fraction of AR's and even less bans (if anyone is banned at all). If the thread has proven anything though, people can tell when it matters most.

I have never claimed to represent anyone other than avatars other than those ones similiar to my age group. The fact you think I should represent teen avatars when I have no experience of this is somewhat confusing to me. I've used phrases like 'avatars my age,' multiple times. LL have been very clear though. Keira Linden stated the following: You can't get anymore clear cut than that. If you don't look 18 and you're in adult land then you're breaking TOS. Let's not be covert or insinuate at all. I don't think underage looking avatars should be in adult land. Let me say it again. I.do.not.think.children.should.be.in.adult.land. It's one of the reason why I never went to adult land even before the changes came in. No one is talking about borderline cases, we were discussing the existence of nudity beaches despite them now definitely being against TOS. I've stated in multiple posts across multiple threads that I think LL is mainly cocnerned with prepubscent avatars such as myself, and that borderline cases in adult land aren't their primary concern. That's the truth, LL is terrified of child avatars like me appearing in images and there being a huge scandal / news. I don't imagine they care about avatars who could be 16 or 17 but who also might be 18 or 19. I get you're frustrated, there is a lot of that going around. Like I've said, no one hates the bad actors more than genuine kid avatars. I'm sure there were teens who were up to no good as well as avatars my age. Let's not tarnish the vast majority with one ugly brush when most people haven't even done anything wrong.

We have and we have pointed out the technical issues. I think LL want it baked into the skin because you're less likely to change your skin as often as you might use BOM for other things. It's much harder to argue you accidentally changed your skin compared to say putting on the wrong bom etc.

Can you provide examples? Also, it's LL who changed the rules not me. People in the child, adult, can't tell thread posted their photos seeking feedback. If you look at that thread youll notice I haven't reacted to any of the photos. I'm a child avatar and won't be in adult sims, what I think is pretty much irrelevant. Whether I think they should age up or not is irrelevant. It's LL who will be judging not me. I've also stated on numerous occasions that child avatars should follow the rules, and have accepted on more than one occasion that I will have to change my avatar (new skins with modesty layers at the very least). If Tweenster don't update then I'll need to get a new avatar and entire wardrobe of clothes. Everyone must take reponsibility here. Whether it's your intention or not, it sounds to me like you're annoyed borderline edge cases are no longer allowed in adult land.

When have I ever trashed anyone? 😦

You do understand the cocnept of mitigating and aggrivating circumstances don't you? It's what judges use when they consider sentencing guidelines for convictions. At the moment there is no option for child avatars to comply with the new TOS. It would be extremely unreasonable to punish someone for something they have no control over. That's a mitigating circumstance. Those who operate nudity beaches should be allowed some time to become aware of the new rules and adjust, yes, I agree, which is what I said in my original post. However, I would argue that these places know and have known that they cross the line for a long time. They now know, or should know, that what they're doing is very much against TOS, yet they carry on anyway. That is an aggrivating circumstance. Being aware of rules and choosing to ignore them is very different to being aware of the rules and having no option to comply.

How is what I said hypocritical?

The two situations are not at all relatable and no one is crying. Please refrain from such provocative statements. 1) Those who play child avatars are waiting on content becoming available. 2) Those sort of places were always dodgy and there was nothing stopping LL then, or now, closing them down. If LL allow them to stay open it makes a mockery of their statements in regards to keeping child avatars safe. I'm not sure what's controversial about saying nudity beaches where both adult avatars and child avatars are naked and sexualised should be closed down is a thing.

I think the longer LL allows those places to stay open the worse it looks for them. Everyone is going to understand there will be some time after the rule changes before the crack down, but how long should that be? After awhile if no action is taken then those who play child avatars might start to think this is just window dressing rather than anything substantial.