Scylla Rhiadra

Is that a largely anecdotal conclusion? Years ago, 2010 I think, a friend of mine was accused of a*eplay by a griefer (anyone who knew him found the accusation laughable, and he NEVER used a child avatar). He was suspended for, I think, about 8 days while they investigated, and then cleared. He's still in SL (although not active at the mo).

True. And some facelights . . .

That would impact a great many more people than are hit by these changes. Anyone with land, for instance, who wants to derender something hideous (and possibly griefy) next door. I suppose it might not be too bad to remove the option to derender attachments. But that's a change to code. This is easier.

Exactly. Because appearances.

Yes. How much adult SLex happens on the dance floor of clubs, between fully clothed avis who are supposedly dancing but going at it in IM? An awful lot, I suspect. So much of this is inevitably about "appearances." LL needs to show that it's "doing something." And it needs to be able to defend itself if an egregious example of a*eplay comes to light publicly, and causes the platform problems. But IF it is true that they needed to "do something," I think they've at least produced something that is workable.

You TP into a place about which you apparently know nothing, and immediately go AFK?????? I'm not sure what to say other than . . . you should probably stop doing that? I think these new rules -- and especially the one about baked-on underclothing, which I suspect is really unnecessary -- are going to create lots of real inconveniences and hardships among those who use child avatars. And, no, I don't think that's a good thing: I believe there is a large and entirely legitimate community of child RPers who deserve to be allowed to do their thing to the greatest degree possible. There is absolutely no question that there is a*eplay happening in SL, but, as I've said before, I am pretty sure that, by a pretty huge margin, it's mostly happening with avatars that are largely indistinguishable from adult ones. But, I'm sorry, your example, above, is trivial to an almost ridiculous degree.

Gwen Jacob for the win!!

And I really find it hard to believe that someone is going to get permabanned because LL's records show they stood at the landing point of an adult sim for 30 seconds before realizing where they were.

Your example, though -- TPing into an Adult area by accident or malicious design by a griefer, and then getting permabanned -- is predicated on the assumption that LL's "investigation" isn't actually going to be an "investigation," but rather a reflex banning. If there is an actual investigation, then it should be clear that you either did so by accident and left immediately, or that you were lured there . . . and left immediately. We are, inevitably, dependent upon LL's good faith in investigating these instances. But that is the case now also.

Ah, the "good old days" . . . How I really don't miss them.

I know which I'd rather have! /me pretends to look brave about walking about topless

Personally, I agree. But then I think adult women should be allowed to be topless in public (which, where I live, they are, actually). But to suggest that there are not people who wouldn't find this "sexual," or perhaps even arousing, is naive. ETA: And to underline what Lil said, above, one of the stipulations in the new rules is that anything that makes "the focal point of the body" for a child "the breasts, pelvis, or buttocks" is forbidden. AGAIN -- would I personally freak out about this? No. But I'm not the one judging the ARs.

I'm organizing a sit-in at the Governor's Mansion to demand that you receive full immunity.

And if she's wearing stuff over it, why does it need to be a "training bra," as it won't be visible anyway? If she's not, why is she wandering around in public in underwear?

Is that a statement, or a question? Why are they not "children"?

Sure. But the problem with finding RL analogues for these things is that this isn't RL, it's SL. In RL, children generally bathe naked. Well, not anymore in SL. In RL, a child might well be asleep in the room next to that in which her parents are having sex. Definitely not in SL. It's not hard to come up with RL scenarios for nearly anything regarding children and nudity and/or sexuality that are quite innocent. "My infant daughter emerged from her bath and came into the hallway still wet and naked while I was talking to a neighbour at the front door!" Could happen!!! But not in SL.

Yes, thanks Keira!

Yep. Same. All of this is true. But consider context and use. In what sorts of context would a child avatar need to be wandering around in a training bra, with nothing on top? And if she is wearing something over it, why does it need to be a "training bra," with light shading to show some signs of developing breasts? This isn't about what happens to RL children. RL children don't have "baked on" underwear. It's about what will fly, and how it will be perceived here, in SL.

It is, to say the least, an overstatement. And I agree that this isn't really a slippery slope at all; on the contrary, by clarifying the rules, it's a good deal less treacherous to navigate than it once was. BUT I also understand, and empathize, with those who are upset about this. Unfortunately, we all knew something like this was coming: the consolation is that it could have been much much worse.

Well, this is very dramatic! Do you really think that rules restricting some aspects of kiddie RP and representation is quite in the same category as warnings about the rise of fascism, though?

Maddy?????

I do take your point. Personally (and there are those here who will disagree with this), I'm tired of the sexualization of adult breasts too. But we do live in a culture in which breasts are sexualized. And a training bra is very likely to be perceived as a sexualization of young girls, if only merely because it suggests that they are developing breasts. Now, if this were tagged as for "teens" rather than "child," there might not be the same issue? Understand, though, that I'm not speaking from a personal moral perspective here. I'm thinking about 1) how LL might perceive such items, and 2) how they are possibly likely to be perceived by those who do engage in a*eplay.

Thanks! And I am pretty sure I saw something about that a while back, but I don't think it's actually in the Community Guidelines. Maybe I'm wrong, and just paranoid?

Well, the guidelines clearly state "a modesty layer which is baked into child avatar skins or bodies, is not transparent, does not match the skin tone, and may not be removed."

That's a really interesting point, and one that LL could do well to clarify. ETA: Oh frick, I forgot that we're not supposed to tag Lindens.