[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

2 minutes ago, Youri Ashton said:

You wish to state that my words were false?

I do, yes.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

1 minute ago, MinkBlueleaf Fyrewik said:

I previously wrote about my friend wanting to know if My Little Pony (OpenPony) would be allowed on A-rated land. Or rather one of her regulars who was 24-7/365 an OpenPony could continue to be allowed. So I want to know as well? I was merely quoting Linden Lab's FAQ. They said to just create a non-human avatar like they answered in the FAQ portion about going out shopping, but I dunno exactly what kind of non-human other than the LL library avatars and the robots they meant. There is a club that bans TWI wolf puppy avatars from their adult region, so would MLP with their big eyes be allowed? (Being big eyes is supposedly one of the tells.) I am an anime / manga character myself (albeit modeled after a 21 year old character) so I am invested in this topic. 

MLP is not human. Whether or not a club bans them or not has no bearing at all. I would assume if you can go shopping in a robot avatar that you can also go shopping in a MLP avatar...unless well it has the head or body of a child avi.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

49 minutes ago, Youri Ashton said:

That sounds more like discrimination based on looks. Not on actual age. Now don't get me wrong, if it's very clearly a child or even baby avi, then yes that person shouldn't be in such a sim and should get banned. But to be fair, SL has seen such problems before in the past and history seems to be doomed to repeat itself. So yes I do worry about it.

Be careful using the "discrimination" word. Just because something isn't allowed doesn't mean it's discrimination.  That has a very distinct definition as to what it applies to.  I'm not even sure a private gaming entity is even bound by any of that for their end users.

 

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

3 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

In some ways, this question is at the heart of most of the concerns people have had for years about kiddie avatars, and the reason why there have been places that automatically banned on the basis of height and so forth: the "chill" factor that comes with the uncertainty of knowing whether or not a venue can be held liable for the inappropriate presence of child avatars.

In the past, when the rules were looser, there was a lot of unnecessary moral panic about this -- kiddie avis being banned from clubs, etc., not because there was sex happening there, but because there might be "strong language" and the like. A lot of region and parcel owners have, in the past, leaned heavily towards being overly-cautious, I think.

That should be less of an issue, in theory, now that the rules are clearer about Adult rated areas. But it doesn't really answer your question. If the owner of an A-rated place is not in-world, for instance, when a group of kiddie avatars appear there (whom, I imagine, would likely be griefers rather than real child RPers), is that owner "responsible" for their presence? Could they be punished for it?

My guess is no: that LL's investigation of any ARs that resulted would make it clear that this was not the fault of the landowner.

But I do agree that some clarification from LL on this would also be good.

This addresses part of my question BUT what if there is a A-rated club (or M-rated for that matter)  that allows child avi looking avatars to be there because they have determined that they are not a child avi.  I was at a club today where clearly the avatar looked like a "teen". Their profile said otherwise but they still looked like one, wearing just a skimpy thong bikini with the "package" clearly shown.  I guess this is where the 16-25 year old range might fall. 

Also how is a owner of a region to know if that avi is in compliance and wearing a body or skin with a modesty layer?

What's to stop me (I wouldn't) from opening a M-rated region and allowing child avi's to be there and not have to be in compliance?

I just see a lot of reasons for this to be hidden more now instead of the problem being dealt with.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

2 minutes ago, Madi Melodious said:

So, basically all I have to do is declare that i'm no longer a child avatar and I can keep my shape and look?  Very good.  "I'm no longer a child avatar."   there problem solved.

It's comments like this that may get Child Avi's banned completely.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

2 minutes ago, MissSweetViolet said:

Agreed, this is thing thing that makes me think they mean built in to the body mesh. If they don't mean that, then they really really need to clarify.

A BOM layer can be removed. It's if built into the body it can't be removed. A different body must be used. I would assume, based on common sense, the don't mean BOM skin layer.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

I have a question that I don't think has been covered here.

Are there any ramifications for region owners if they allow Child Avi's on their land.  Say there is a club that is A rated and only has child avi's that are all out of compliance.

Will the club/region owner also be banned for allowing this or is this simply on an avatar case by case basis?

In other words, should region owners be concerned here at all about being perma banned?

 

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

7 minutes ago, Daniel Regenbogen said:

No, it isn't. It is something forbidden now, but it still isn't doing anything adult. Walking down a street isn't an adult action. Fixing a rental box isn't an adult action. Shopping (for non-adult items) isn't an adult action. Heck, skinny dipping isn't an adult action.

It feels more and more like "Moms for Liberty" have taken over the policy making.

She means just being in a A rated sim is now banned.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

3 minutes ago, Vanity Fair said:

I think we should start a betting pool as to when this thread is gonna get locked.

Vanity puts a 5-dollar bill on the 3:00 p.m. timeslot for today.

Why is everyone saying this? It's like people want it locked. It will just continue in a newly created thread with a different title.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

5 minutes ago, Starberry Passion said:

No, I'm pretty sure that this clarifies that those who do have a petite build, are slim and are grown women don't have to live in fear for being women who are just skinny.

Stop trying to say that slim, petite or short is childlike, it's not. 

NO, it means height is not the only factor that will determine if the avi is a child avatar or not.  Maybe re-read the FAQ's.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

2 minutes ago, Ayashe Ninetails said:

I was wondering this myself. There are pros and cons to adult skin makers getting involved here (mostly to do with time - how many bodies and types can they feasibly support, really???), but if they don't, what would teen avatars have to do to comply with the new rules? This is, of course, assuming they too need modesty layers.

Perhaps that is the end goal?

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

3 minutes ago, Vivienne Schell said:

Also, the ***** crowd is insignificant by the numbers, i doubt that the additional workwould pay of for anyone.

You don't know this. It's obviously large enough LL changed the entire TOS for it.  AND one person engaging in this activity is too much.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

13 minutes ago, Starberry Passion said:

 

Secondlife advertises itself as a second life, a world where you can be anything, do anything (except stuff that isn't accepted by the community)

bolded, underlined...except stuff that is ILLEGAL. Whether the community accepts it has no bearing on anything whatsoever.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

8 minutes ago, Starberry Passion said:

While I agree with you, I rarely have ever heard of pedophilic activity for a long long time. A mysterious blog came and then it just suddenly left, and had everyone panicked.

People don't even know if it was true or fake, people just took it as word from some guy they don't even know.

I'm pretty sure that LL investigated and must have found some merit to it or they would not have taken these steps. Don't dismiss a problem just because you personally don't see it.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

5 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Am surprised as I haven't seen any posts in this thread about how one would filter out and ban those who do prey on kids. Contrary to what seems popular opinion, the ones taking on a younger look, rarely approach or chat with others like them other then to compliment a look or dress.

I'm surprised that I haven't seen an all out call for a ban on child avi's. I for one, would support this wholeheartedly.  Problem solved.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

1 minute ago, Starberry Passion said:

That wouldn't make sense because even though you get older, your facial structure changes, when there was a lack of bone structure, it would be there in an adult,y ou would be able to tell with a less rounder head, less elongated forehead, less puffy cheeks, there would be more definition on the face but you have the same face as you did as you were a child  but your bone structure grew and changed and your skin grows older with time making you look older.

I'm not going to argue sematics with you. It doesn't matter what you and I think "looks" like a Child Avi. It only matters if LL thinks there has been an infraction enough to ban someone. Take it up with them.

 

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

5 minutes ago, Wincil said:

Im pretty sure this forum is getting to lets lock this forum territory.  

I doubt it. That would have happened pages ago. Today is tame compared to yesterday.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

2 minutes ago, Starberry Passion said:

That's what I was saying. Faces don't indicate a thing.

If that face was on an adult body then I would call it a child avi.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

24 minutes ago, Starberry Passion said:

What is the point here? The top picture above is clearly a child. If you don't see that I'm not sure what to tell you. Perhaps not be a child avi as your perspective is skewed.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

2 minutes ago, Starberry Passion said:

These kids look like kids, that face looks like an adult face that I posted.

it really doesn't

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

6 minutes ago, brodiac90 said:

Trying to think positively, I hope that people will treat child avis better now that the rules are clearer and that people don't feel so threatened. 

I actually think it will stay about the same. The people who think child avi's should not be on SL are not going to change their mind because they are wearing a modesty layer.  

There is always an uproar when changes to a platform or game are done.  Play any MMO and go to their discord on patch day.  Eventually it dies down till the next big change happens.

 

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

10 hours ago, Denim Robonaught said:

And then we fall in that good old axiom where decisions are made of which RP is acceptable and which is not.

Well, that is exactly WHY this had to be done. People obviously were not making acceptable decisions on what RP is allowed.

There is absolutely no reason at all to HAVE to RP anything that involves having no clothes on. A bath you can take with a swimsuit on. There is no need at all to have to be naked.  Is it realistic? No, but RP isn't real ,that is why it's called RP. You don't have to RP every single second of the day. Skip the baths or put swim trunks on. 

Even actors wear swimsuits or covering on their bodies when doing movies.  Do you think that all actors are actually naked when acting. They are not and it doesn't need to be done in SL either.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

I am pretty sure that their is way to know if a child avi is in compliance.  In open sim when Athena was believed to be a copybot body of Maitrya (I may have this info wrong) there were certain grids that a pop up came up that said you were not allowed to wear Athena on this grid. You will be disconnected from the grid. Come back after you remove Athena.  Point being that if you are not in compliance a warning message should be given.

Again, I am sure I got some info jumbled but that was the gist of it. @Arielle Popstar probably has the correct info.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

3 minutes ago, Quistess Alpha said:

too lazy to check if anyone else responded, but no, subjectivity being a thing, one could hypothetically style a senra as a teen with the right combination of sliders, outfit, and mannerisms, (which I would say is true of almost all generic mesh bodies) but there is no version of it specifically built for people who wish to present as children. IMHO I'd say there ought to be, if only as a standard example of how the new required features might work (permanent alpha-cuts around the no-no areas seems the easiest to me?)

I thinks this is a great point. If LL is requiring a modesty layer on a child avi then they should provide one for free like the other senra avatars. 

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

3 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

Yeah, but if someone were playing a child avatar they might want to take a bath - or not take a bath, and then run naked around the house. It seems to me that forcing clothing or modesty layers onto all the child avatars is really infringing on their roleplay options, when the vast majority of them are behaving innocently.

Is it really that hard to just eliminate that type of RP. There are plenty of other RPing opportunities besides that.

Also,  my RL son used to play with himself under the cover at 3 years old. Shall we allow that. I mean it's all innocent behavior for a 3 year old that doesn't understand what it's there for.