Aya Sweetheart

what does that mean? a typo? They will not remove private sexual and nude things from being done in M, they are talking about removing nudity from publicly being allowed on M and keep it in private areas like sexual things are now in M.

So what would you call Asian Americans with varying shades of colors from whiteish to very dark? I seriously doubt that is accurate... would need to see how they got that info, and if it even applied to users of SL, or just assumed characteristics from browsing history from the main website.

Don't expect this level of fairness. I would bet money they look at all previous times you may have been reported and investigated. Their goal is not being fair or just, its in getting rid of troublemakers She isn't the one that brought up ghetto, she is just repeating back, its not the same.

It says engage or participate in an event or location. Just shopping in a store is participating in the location. It doesn't say you have to engage or participate with the naked avatar.

While I agree, not everyone does... some people tell me its expected if not explicitly forbidden, and others say the opposite. LL just needs to clarify it if I can get a lot of people to not agree.

That's how it should be, but that's not what the rules actually state, which is why they should clarify... because what it actually states seems incorrect. It says a child avatar cannot participate in a location (like a store or shopping) if nudity is expected... and everyone says moderate land allows nudity, so its always expected.

Because, according to other info, Moderate Land always allows nudity, and its expected. So if reading very specifically, this will disallow child avatars from moderate land unless that land specifically has rules in place that forbids nudity... People want this clarified from LL that Child Avatars really have to avoid almost every moderate area.

I see nothing in Moderate settings on SL website that says Nudity allowing is expected... it pretty much hides all types of stuff like that. It would seem that nudity is not default or expected, unless the area specifically permits it. Child Avatars are supposed to not be in places where nudity is expected to happen... and by default I don't see why anyone would expect nudity to happen on moderate regions that don't specifically list that nudity is allowed or indicate in some way its expected, like a nude beach. It would be good if LL would make that crystal clear in the way they write the requirements though... but LL has never been great at being clear. If I saw people running around naked near children avatars on moderate land that doesn't specifically say it allows nudity... I'd ask the person to cover up, or AR them if no other option. I don't see why anyone would take that as the child avatars fault, no matter who was there first

They are saying that people are doing this in world... they are not saying they agree with it

I had a horrific childhood... I turned out different than others who are still alive and were in similar situations... everyone is different. It never made me want to relive anything, or play a child AV on SL... but If people get some happiness and help on SL differently than we do, I think that's a great thing for them and I wouldn't want to stand in their way if they aren't hurting anyone.

Yes this is LL dictating what you can and cannot use to make a child avatar. A creator who makes child bodies will need to make a modesty layer... yes. That doesn't mean that any creator that makes any item that could possibly be used in some way with a child looking avatar. If Maitreya doesn't make any child avatar bodies, they have nothing to do. It doesn't matter (for Maitreya) if someone misuses the body. I don't get why this is still a question. If I make an adult skin, and someone puts it on a child AV, thats them doing the wrong thing, not me. If the item made does not have a modesty layer, it cannot be used for a child avatar. Whoever is driving the child avatar will get in trouble for using a child avatar that doesn't follow the rules. This is on the user who will get in trouble for trying to use it, not the creator, because some child avatar is wearing something they made that they never intended for children anyways. This is why a lot of child-avatar users are upset they are using items that the creators are gone, and they have to dump all their stuff and stop using any of it, because it'll never be updated.

If this is a place where nudity is allowed... then a child avatar should never be there at all, even alone (per the TOS). If this is a place where nudity is NOT allowed, then Woody is in the wrong.

I think that would be up to the user, not the maker. Maitreya just needs to add a disclaimer "for adult avatar use only" and if someone misuses the product, that's on the user.

This is a good suggestion really. Also a gaming laptop doesn't have enough power with the battery to run full speed. You will have to use it plugged in all the time to actually play, or you'll get less than half the performance and your battery will still die quickly... its nothing like a Mac for battery life, not even close.

Thats not what its about though. Its region owners who are scared of LLs rules, which they probably don't understand, and think they have to do this to save themselves because of the LL rules... even though they don't really want to.

13-17 are children... saying "teen" doesn't make someone not a child. I don't think anyone who sees the rules about child avatars thinks its anything different. A child is anyone before they become adult. Teens are not adult legally in most places (an on SL) until 18. I don't think this is true at all. If any M place allows nudity, then a child avatar should not be there at all, ever, even if alone... If the place does NOT allow nudity or sexual actions occurring, then a child avatar can be there and the nude adult avatar is in the wrong. I think Maitreya and any others who make bodies intended for adults can simply put "for adult use only" or some similar disclaimer and not have to do anything like that.

Used several photos of my avatar and its gone from 14 to 28 lol I think it might have issues with non-real faces I did a couple of my RL pics and it thought 14 and 16 ... and I'm 22 lol. Its probably not too inaccurate though, many people think I'm a kid still... (I had the police called on me not long ago for using a "fake ID" and the police had to straighten them out that women come in all shapes and sizes, and how to know if its a real ID) so I have to deal with it in RL and deal with it in SL unless I want to look old/ugly, maybe why this all annoys me more.

I have noticed RL older people like to dress very differently from RL younger people, even in SL... I like more cute, kawaii, type stuff that a lot of the older people (most of SL) thinks is only for children. This comes across in SL fashion a lot, where I roll my eyes at 99.9% of outfits made. The rules aren't really the issue, they seem good. Its about the people reporting and harassing... even replies in this thread wandering into bigotry... I just hope LL has some wiser people making decisions than some of the community here. I also noticed that this thread reminds me a lot of Twitter/X... which is not a good thing.

That's why I think they should change the wording... not the spirit of the rule. I am not debating the rule, just how its worded poorly and making people make assumptions. Some people here are taking those assumptions easily and not understanding how things might be misread or misunderstood. They need to show an example... then need to say that this modesty rule is required at all times to be followed, and they can do that without causing the huge uproar they are now by making new easily circumvented requirements. It only hurts legit users and creators and the bad actors just bypass it all.

And someone makes a tattoo layer that makes the modesty part of the skin vanish... now is it still meeting the rules? I am saying its always removable, so they need to make the rule more clear.

from the text.. it says cannot be removed. I would think they mean BOM is not OK... but the problem is that its impossible to make anything that cannot be "removed" by appearance if any tattoo type layers are available. I think they need to make this more clear and allow BOM to be it.

This is true, as people often don't understand the details... so thanks. I'll make sure to clearly write my own descriptions for things that people could misunderstand

I guess you haven't met the haters that think anything under 6 foot or fat or doesn't have giant thighs, butt, and boobs are kids. There are a lot of stupid people out there that have really bad perception. Also in a gray area some people don't get it, I've had creeps messaging me asking if I can get a bit younger... I'd rather make it clear I am an adult avatar always and forever and have them leave me alone... it only takes the 1 or 2 to cause issues even if 99% of people think things are fine. I can be in one area and look 20+ then go somewhere else with people using old giant avatars and perceptions change. I shouldn't have to look like a 30 year old, or giant, or ugly just so people don't give me problems.

it wouldn't be that bad if anyone in the gray area, actually list in their profiles what their intent is... but I've had people get mad for having 18+ in my profile saying I put it there to try to hide something, and other people mad when I didn't have it there saying it was hard to tell. Its hard to win

They already did... 17 and under is considered child and has to have modesty skins in SL now. Its not about pedos, or pervs, or kids... this is only about RL laws in some places around CP, and that even SL graphics could be considered CP, and they don't want to get into legal problems.