Jump to content

Scylla Rhiadra

Resident
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    20,274

  • Joined

  • Days Won

    184

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Scylla Rhiadra

    So what changed in the Terms of Service?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    1 minute ago, Vivienne Schell said:

    The V. and the P. are pretty much "photorealistic". But it´s easy to figure out. Someone will certainly AR the accounts which run child avis at such a location and if the child avi does not return...

    Yes, Theresa's post highlighted the important bit with regard to the presence of child avis there.

    But . . . again . . . nudity in general is pretty common in Moderate areas, so what @Stephanie Misfit says above is true: child avatars are going to have to be a little careful in some Moderate-rated places.

    That's maybe unfortunate, because it muddies the waters a bit.

    • Like 2

    So what changed in the Terms of Service?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    4 minutes ago, Theresa Ravenheart said:

    I'm confused, you just said that genitals, in the past, have not been considered "adult" content. But in the same breath you said, "adult" is photorealistic nudity. How do you have photorealistic nudity without genitals?! The fact that kid avatars cannot be naked any more, means they should not be around with anyone exposed genitals of any kind. Per the updated terms: 

    • Engaging or participating in any event or location where nudity and/or sexual activity is present, encouraged and/or expected.

      So any form of nudity is now adult content.

    Thank you!

    You've just answered my question: I didn't see that. That clearly means that child avatars can not  go to a nude beach, even if it is "Moderate."

    (But I'll still note that it's possible, apparently, to have a Moderate-rated nude beach. I.e., nudity as such is not just "Adult.")

    • Like 3

    So what changed in the Terms of Service?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    Just now, Vivienne Schell said:

    Genitals ARE adult content. Also no clarification needed.

    No, actually, they are not, or have generally not been treated as such in the past. "Adult" means (and I quote with emphasis added) "photorealistic nudity." In practice, non-sexual nudity has generally been permitted in Moderate areas.

    And the fact is that there are Moderate-rated nude beaches. Quite a few of them, actually.

    In theory, a child avatar should be able to go to one of these. They just wouldn't be allowed to be nude themselves.

    • Like 1

    So what changed in the Terms of Service?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, Katherine Heartsong said:

    Are there any "family friendly nude beaches" on anything but Adult rated land? Why? How?

    And regardless, a nude beach expects the visitors to be nude, yes? In that case child avatars can't go and participate in nudity even if these are on moderate land since they can't be nude. From the new ToS ...

    Residents presenting as Child Avatars shall be prohibited from the following: Being fully nude.

    Actually, legitimate question.

    There are nude beaches that are moderate: nudity (but not public sexuality) is permitted in Moderate rated areas.

    What I can't see is anything restricting child avatars from being around nudity. Sexuality, yes -- that's clearly prohibited, and has been for years. But I don't see anything that would prevent a child avatar who is not nude (i.e., in a bathing suit) from hanging out at a beach where everyone else is nude.

    Am I missing something?

    And if not, maybe this is something else LL could clarify?

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
    • Confused 1

    So what changed in the Terms of Service?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said:

    It is a rather pitiful start when the target for their policy changes are the prey of pedophiles. 

    "Prey," Arielle? In what sense?

    You do realize that the typists behind the child avatars here aren't actually kids, right?

    There's no one using candy to lure the few of them who might engage in a*eplay into the back of an unmarked van. Anyone on a kiddie avi here who gets involved in inappropriately sexual activities knows full well what they are doing, knows that it is a bannable offence, and could easily extricate themselves from it at any time.

    The only sense in which child avatar RPers might possibly be considered "prey" is if they are targeted by griefers -- and from what I know of how griefers work, it's quite as likely to be the other way round, with fake kiddie avatars being used to launch fraudulent ARs against those representing as adults.

    • Like 5
    • Thanks 6

    So what changed in the Terms of Service?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    30 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

    No one else gives a 💩 because it's not personally important to them.

    You'll find more than a few who represent as adult on this forum who'd disagree with you about that.

    31 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

    If we lose the child avatar community we lose all hope of this ever being anything other than humping avatars

    lolwhut????

    No.

    32 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

    and liars who deny humping avatars

    lolwhut again???

    Just . . . what?????

    There are more things in Second Life, Coffee, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

    • Like 9
    • Thanks 4
    • Haha 1

    So what changed in the Terms of Service?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    8 minutes ago, Madi Melodious said:

    Because they feel like they are being targeted and punished for something they had nothing to do with.  And they have a point.

    I think it is a misreading to see this as a "punishment," even if the main burden is being born by those with child avatars.

    This is mostly about LL protecting itself. It IS unfortunate that that is necessary, but I still maintain that none of these changes are particularly "punishing."

    • Like 5

    So what changed in the Terms of Service?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    5 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

    They can't even work the problem as they have no idea what the mandatory modesty layer might need to look like.

    This is a completely valid point. LL needs to be clearer about this.

    6 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

    There is sufficient uncertainly and anxiety that it's hard to feel safe in SL as a child avatar on a good day. This is not a good day. There are new rules, they are vague in areas of compliance.

    With the exception noted above, I still think these new rules clarify existing ambiguities. As I have said, if I represented as a child, I'd actually feel safer under these new guidelines. They are much less subjective.

    8 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

    The news is spreading very slowly and everyone is afraid for their ability to continue participating in SL.

    LL totally needs to do a better job of communicating this so that the rumour mill doesn't generate a panic. The misinformation and misunderstanding in this thread makes that clear enough, I think.

    9 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

    I think you're missing  that those who play a child avatar often have more demanding emotional needs.

    I am willing to accept that. I don't think it exempts them from rules designed to make everyone a bit safer, though. Again, maybe LL can do a better job of communicating and reassuring everyone that the sky is not falling.

    But so far, here, the main objections I've heard to this is 1) skins aren't available (yet), 2) child avis can't go to adult rated areas, and 3) child avatars can't be naked.

    None of those is onerous or insurmountable.

    10 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

    This is exceptionally complicated and involved.

    I don't think the rules are, though -- such ambiguities that still exist, and such worries -- as for instance ARs -- existed under the old system.

    • Like 2

    So what changed in the Terms of Service?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted · Edited by Scylla Rhiadra
    Typo

    I'm not sure I understand why people who represent as children should be jumping ship, to be honest?

    There is a nearly 2 month grace period here. There are lots of people making content for children's avatars -- I am sure there will be new compliant skins available for most relatively current bodies soon. I get that some are using very old bodies, but . . . well, I used to use mainly a Slink body, and had to switch over as it was abandoned by creators. It happens. You adapt.

    Yeah, kid avatars won't be able to go to adult rated areas anymore. I'm not sure why this is a hardship, really? I haven't heard a really cogent and rational explanation for this. If the store you want to shop in is Adult, then use an adult body, and bring home a demo. Like most of us do?

    And as for the "my child avatar can't be naked anymore" thing . . . yeesh.

    Try saying this aloud, and ask yourself how it sounds:

    "I am upset because my 10 year old boy/girl can't run around naked on a beach full of naked adults."

    • Like 11
    • Thanks 2

    So what changed in the Terms of Service?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

    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.

    I think some of this is certainly a bit ambiguous -- as, really, all of this is to some degree, because someone is often going to have to make a judgement call.

    Given that it does involve judgement, I'd hope that LL would focus on the avatar owner and not the club owner. Is that cute girl in ponytails sucking on a pacifier and blowing snot bubbles (I added the latter because it's a favourite of @Rowan Amore) a child? Or an adult engaged in deliberate self-infantilization? If it's at all open to debate, LL should probably not punish the landowner, I think. (Unless, perhaps, it keeps happening again and again?)

    I don't think the presence or absence of modesty layers can be seen as a landowner's responsibility, as there is literally no way them to be certain, especially if BoM clothing is also being worn.

    • Like 6

    So what changed in the Terms of Service?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    1 minute ago, MissSweetViolet said:

    Even if they clamed to be invited, LL could easily check chat logs to see that's not the case. So if they investigate thoroughly, this shouldn't be an issue.

    Agreed, this is more or less what I was saying as well.

    A statement in the FAQ that directly addresses this, however, might reduce the panic that these new rules are likely to trigger among some landowners.

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1

    So what changed in the Terms of Service?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    8 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.

    I get that you are being facetious, but this does highlight what I think is actually a more problematic aspect of a*eplay in SL: the idea that seems to be current that simply declaring on your profile that you are 18+ somehow lets you off the hook, even if you happen to be playing a grade 10 student in a sexy school RP scenario, or are being "punished" by your "daddy" for breaking curfew or not eating your veggies at dinner, etc.

    Not sure if this needs a clarification from LL or not, but I'd hope that merely saying that you are not underage is NOT enough to allow you to get away with what is otherwise obviously a*eplay.

    On the other hand, I don't think that LL cares as much about a*eplay involving teens, especially in the 15+ or so range, because it doesn't "look" as bad.

    • Like 6
    • Thanks 1

    So what changed in the Terms of Service?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    5 minutes ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

    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?

     

    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.

    • Like 6
×
×
  • Create New...