Nika Talaj

Again, I really would wait to see what shakes down by the May 20th Roundtable. Unless one's only interest in SL is a*eplay, why jump the gun? It may turn out that 'starting from scratch' is not necessary. Many stranger things have happened over the years.

Thank you, search is my friend. Good to know. Good luck, Tommy! I wonder who he reports to?

QFT ------------------------ /me notes that this thread is being actively moderated RIGHT NOW. Politeness is not just a virtue, at the moment it's a necessity. ------------------------ There's a LOT of repetition in this thread. I haven't seen a new issue in quite a few pages; of course, as new people notice the thread, they will post. But I think we've given the Lindens quite a bit to mull over already. I think I can hear a thumping noise, which I believe is the head of whoever is in charge of governance banging on their desk. Actually, I wonder who IS in charge of governance now ... hard to believe it's still Patch. If we make it hard enough for LL to implement a policy response, one thing that COULD happen is transferring governance to report to legal. At which point anything having to do with governance could become MUCH more difficult. Hopefully that's just paranoia. (is it?)

My guess is that Windows 7 is indeed the issue. You might try Cool Viewer - Henri's viewer is more sensitive to the needs of low-end machines. If I were you, I would avoid upgrading too, lol. But you might begin thinking about how you could score a newer PC; used windows 10 machines might be going for a song on sites like craigslist. And this popup works fine in Firestorm on Windows 10. For the moment, the solution is probably to login once on somebody's newer machine, just to check the box. [If you have a VERY trusted friend, you could have them do it for you. Then change your password!].

So, all of us on M-rated regions who do not engage in SLEX have been, mysteriously, converted into humping avatars, or liars? Say what? /me makes you some chamomile tea in hopes that it will calm your nerves. That's very sad. If you have any more friends who are considering drastic, immediate action, you might try reminding them that absolutely nothing has changed about their SL, and it appears that nothing WILL change until late June. So why not stay until at least the May 20th roundtable, which supposedly will be further addressing this issue?

Personal observation. This was not always the behavior of governance, certainly not when I joined in 2006, but in the last 5 years or so, yes, that is how they behave. They warn before doing so little as returning a security orb.

I took a day-long break from this thread, so haven't read all the intervening pages. But ..."May never exist"? What makes you think that? LL clearly does not intend to ban child avatars. Maybe take a deep breath or 3? You seem to be working yourself up into a bit of hysteria - and I doubt that you're the only one doing so. I don't see what is so hard about skin and/or mesh body makers putting out a version with underwear baked on, and I assume LL will be working with creators to be more specific about what sort of undies are required. In the unlikely event that creators flat out refuse to do so, LL will have to change the policy or (more likely!), give them money or perqs to persuade them to play ball. And yes, there will be a spike in ARs when the requirement goes into effect, but governance deals with new policies not by banning avatars who infringe, but by sending them a warning email explaining that there is a new policy, with links to wiki articles. I don't see why they wouldn't do the same for this new policy. Especially as most residents may have no idea this change is taking place.

Y'know, my guess is none of these new policies will have the slightest effect on the small number of folks who are doing sexual *****. Unless there actually were some Lindens involved, which cases will be handled more directly. I mean, sexual ***** has already been banned for years. Therefore, those who are doing it are already in hiding somewhere. If I wanted to hide sexual *****, I wouldn't bother with an adult region. There are lots more moderate regions, and that's where I'd be, in a remote moderate private region that is restricted to group, high up in a big skydome. Someplace where everyone permitted there can wear whatever they want, and do whatever pervy things their dirty souls desire. Far from prying eyes.

To my eyes, that calls attention to the genitals, whereas my bet is that LL is thinking more along the lines of tidy whities, ala Starberry's post above.

I think LL's use of the term "modesty layer" in their official Clarification is confusing, particularly since Maitreya and other body makers provide mesh bits called "layers" for tattoos, underwear, etc.. These are basically onion layers for things that you want to wear under your mesh clothes. I don't think that's what LL is referring to - I think they mean that skins for child avatars must APPEAR to be wearing an underwear layer, but it must be baked into the skin itself.

Exactly, the body cannot be updated, so since no one is making skins for it anymore, unfortunately she's right, it's a lost cause. But clothes rigged for one body can be worn by anyone, and since many AVI(L) clothes appear to be fitmesh, obviously the AVI(L) body was rigged to the usual SL human skeleton. If Madi were to change bodies, old fitmesh clothes she has may work as well with the new body. And some of the clothes rigged for AVI(L) might work as well; she could try it using a demo of a new body, particularly if she chooses one with a good alpha HUD. My male alt has never bought any clothes for the actual freebie body he wears, usually either Jake or Gianni clothes work.

What? This is all LL says about the modesty layer in their "clarifications" page. I don't see any further description in the FAQ. I see no requirement that the skin be made by the creator of the body. Just that a modesty layer be baked into whatever skin a child avatar is using. As I read this, the modesty layer must be part of the skin, not a separate BOM garment that the avatar could remove to become nude. Every skin that a child avatar uses must have a modesty layer; if they use a skin that does not, they are not in compliance.

I don't understand. AVI(L) bodies are mesh, and all the clothes I see on marketplace for it are mesh. Many are old fitmesh clothes. So, if you bought a new body, particularly one with a good alpha hud, wouldn't most of your mesh clothes work with it? I get that you don't WANT to change bodies, but ... couldn't doing so work? Or were AVI(L) bodies and clothes rigged very oddly?

/me tilts head. If a body supports BOM, and is shaped so that it frequently can be used to represent a child or teen, I assume versions of skins will become available soon with baked-in underwear. Certainly for bodies marketed as children, but also Maitreya and other commercial bodies that support childlike shapes. If a body doesn't allow BOM, and is nomod, then it would be incumbent upon the maker to provide an update with baked-in underwear. If the maker is still active in SL, doing so should be easy. If you have a child body which is nomod, doesn't support BOM, and the maker is no longer active, then yes, you have a problem. Is this common? If/when LL clarifies the definition of "child avatar", it would be good if they also clarified whether furry "cubs" are also child avatars. Whoever's job it turns out to be to do that, I don't envy them!

Still no sign of any new theme under development up in the SSP zones. The only activity I see is an occasional dot in SSP Conspiracy III, or the QA Vault region. Evidently work on Belli coastlines will continue for a while, excellent! Mariners take note: the region in the southwest corner of the Meds, Cape Finagle, has been completely taken over by hermit crabs (!!!), even the small beach adjacent to residential regions. And, the channel between the sand bars and the Med continent is very shallow, in fact only a tidal pool, whose floor is littered with shells.