brodiac90

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.

Some do, but most people who play kid avatars in my experience play them exlusively. IMO, mixing adult and child content on the same account especially things people can see (profiles / picks / groups) etc looks dodgy.

I agree, perception is everything in matters like these. People need to be very careful about what they say as things being mistaken for others things, even if there was no ill intent, can have very bad consequences for those affected. There shoud be no confusion where it comes to child avatars and adult activities. It's one of the main reasons I play as a 9 year old boy. No one could look at my avatar and think I'm anything but a child. I think if you have an avatar that is borderline then that is very dangerous.

Which is in no way appropriate for child avatars, even older ones such as teens as yourself.

Might still do, don't you dare take away my WiFi! 😄 Joking of course.

There are lots of HUDs like that for families in SL. Starries is one, Parents Little Helper was another awhile back. For example, Starries has a hand hold feature which makes the child avatar follow the parent. There are also pick up and carry options and things like time outs and treats and rewards. My SL mom can give me stickers or rez out snacks and drinks via the HUD.

I think so, for example, if boys have a chest modesty layer then I suspect you will see boys on the beach or at pools wearing those swimsuit material UV / surfer top rash vests from now on to hide the modesty layer. Not through anything malicious but because we don't all want to look like clones.

Someone else, I forget now, suggested the idea of a child avatar account that you had to subscribe to like premium so that all your info would be on file.

Yes, although you don't want a t-shirt style as that would break tank top mesh or any t-shirt which had shorter arms. Similarly boxer style underwear would break a lot of ballet leotards, babies onesie and even some swimwear - breaking the thong style swimwear is actually a good thing come to think of it. So ideally we want something people can look at and go, yep that's reasonable, but nothing so extreme it breaks everything.

True, but in practise there are child avatars that can be sized to either be very clearly prepubescent with a totally flat undeveloped chest, but which can quickly be changed to be very much so if they're aged up.

Keeping things on topic - what do people think the modesty layers should be? It was mentioned much earlier in the thread but didn't really get much traction other than everyone agreeing that LL needed to clarify things and set very clear expectations and examples for creators. We know they will be releasing guidance soon so maybe a deeper discussion would be beneficial? I personally think the most practical solution would be brief style underwear and a vest style tank top for both boys and girls. Briefs because both boys and girls wear them so it would be unisex and because it would be much easier to implement and police. It would mean boys wouldnt be able to be topless at the beach etc but I don't know how you implement it in any other meaningful way considering there aren't really boy or girl avatars for this age range - they're just all female bodies. What do people think?

It's probably a less severe form of nudity. In RL people in the UK would react very differently to a child in a swimsuit next to a woman wearing bikini bottoms but nothing up top compared to the same scenario but with a fully nude man.

I play a child avatar and I agree. There are lots of perfectly legal things parents and kids do together in RL but which wouldn't be appropriate for SL. My SL mom would just be like - gives you bath and then gets you ready for bed. That whole part is skipped and then it's tuck in time in my kid bed which only has kid friendly animations. It isn't a PG bed, it's a bed specifically designed for kid avatars. PG furniture is often just adult furniture with the explicit animations removed.

Discussing why LL are making the changes is pretty much pointless. It goes back to sim owners being able to ban who they want for whatever reason, but on a larger scale. LL can change the TOS at any point for any reason and they did. They might even do more.... The changes, though, are broadly a good thing. Protecting adult avatars on Adult land is a good thing. Similarly, LL added a load of protections to child avatars so it's even easier to AR those that try to be involved in things they shouldn't be, whether that be adult avatars, child avatars or both. Has there been any update on what the modesty layers will need to be?

Thanks for the tip.