Scylla Rhiadra

This is conflating two very different things: RL age, and represented age. Yeah, I can assume that that cute My Little Pony avatar is really a human because RL My Little Ponies don't have opposable thumbs and can't type or use a mouse, but that's totally irrelevant to the context of SL.

Technically, you are absolutely correct -- but I suspect that the way it has been worded inadvertently reveals LL's real motivation here, which is to be able to demonstrate that they've "done something" by insisting that skins for underage avatars are, by default, not nude. Anyone who finds a work-around (as for instance a tattoo layer that "re-fleshifies" the groin) has violated that -- but it's not LL's fault: they put the "system" in place, and someone has merely found a way around it. As many have already noted, actually detecting whether or not a child avatar is wearing a skin with baked-in undies is likely to be very difficult, as that area of the body might well be alphaed out, or covered up with BOM. I get why this particular part of the new rules is causing so much angst, but honestly I think it's actually, in some ways, the least important of them.

That I am sure is part of the "thrill."

Also possible, of course.

Possibly true, but I suspect the more common reason is that they are RPing in contexts where one would not expect to find someone who is 18+. For instance, to use my go-to example, a sexy high school RP scenario. That Grade 11 student being "disciplined" by teach after class would, in an RL context, be most unlikely to be 18 or older, so the context suggests a*eplay. But if the profile says 18+, then the person probably believes that they have established "plausible deniability": even though the RP would seem to indicate a breaking of the rules, they can point to that statement and claim to be playing . . . an 18 year old Grade 11 student. Whether Governance would buy that is, of course, a whole other story. But my sense, given the popularity of this kind of RP, is that they have in the past.

Very much so. I think they've done the minimum they thought they needed to do to show that they were paying attention, and "doing something." The fact that child avatars are still permitted in Moderate rated regions is an indication of that. This could have been a LOT worse.

Actually, "1948" is by George Orwell's less-well-known second cousin (twice removed), Wilbur Orwell.

Yes, but what I hope we do NOT get into is a sort of "shoot 'em all, and let God sort it out" mentality. I do worry there is going to be, for at least the first little while, an absolute firestorm of ARs.

Sure, and have every avatar in SL lurching around cross-legged and cursing that they drank so much coffee? I think not!

I think actually that's exactly what they have done. There isn't really a distinction that I can see between mesh bodies that have been purpose-made to represent children or teens, and standard adult bodies that are used for slightly older kids. It's why a few people have mentioned the necessity of skins for Maitreya (for instance) with baked-in modesty undies. In practice, of course, anyone using a Maitreya can likely just claim to be 18+ if they are ever queried on it. And I don't think LL gives a hoot about what people do in front of their keyboards, or how many hands they are using to type. I think they want an obvious and impossible-to-miss way of showing that they are de-sexualizing child avis. Again, it's about appearances more than it is about "morality."

Well, as about 3/4s of the "schools" I've seen in SL are packed with Adult animations, I sure hope not.

NOT BUNNIES!!!!!!!! 😮😡

Kathlen is right about this, I think. And it does confuse things. "Child avatars should not be engaging or participating in any event or location where nudity and/or sexual activity is present, encouraged and/or expected." So, yeah. For all intents, something like a nude beach might be rated Moderate, but it would effectively be out of bounds for child avatars, just as if it were Adult.

AI trained on SL chat . . . Now THAT is a dystopian nightmare.

It would be easier to read as ironic if I hadn't run across proponents of AI suggest some pretty similar things in RL!

You are not, I hope, being serious? You want 24/7 digital surveillance in SL, recorded chat, and then enforcement by AI???? "This avatar only has 5 fingers! Book 'em!"

The road to Hell is paved with . . . PBR.

Discussions here can get heated, and I understand that this is a really important issue to people on both sides of this discussion. I've occasionally been tempted to write "Oh just **** off" myself on occasion. (Generally I get it out by saying it to my dog, and then feeling bad because she looks hurt.) It might not be a bad idea to step back a bit if you're getting very upset? Or not; that's your call. In any case, I get it.

Wincil, a genuinely friendly word of warning. This kind of abusive insult is not permitted here, and it will get you suspended or, if it is repeated often enough, get this thread locked. Please try to avoid personal insults?

Coffee is correct that I am not deep into anime culture, but I am sufficiently familiar with it (via things like My Hero Academia, Fullmetal Alchemist, and of course Miyazaki) that I myself do not see that as a representation of a child. Not even just the face. There is definitely a cultural issue here -- the "translation" sometimes can lead to misleading conclusions. At the same time, it needs to also be acknowledged that the sexualization of young people is by no means uncommon in anime culture (and I'm not just talking about Hentai). This is one of those areas where we are going to have to have some faith that Governance is reasonable and relatively well-informed.

From Merriam-Webster (emphasis added): "The term normie has emerged as both a noun and an adjective referring to one whose tastes, lifestyle, habits, and attitude are mainstream and far from the cutting edge, or a person who is otherwise not notable or remarkable. Current use of normie does away with such specific applications. Its more generalized use, however, sometimes comes with an implied sneer of condescension or contempt, particularly within online communities. It has taken hold in the language of memes and was, for a while, part of the vocabulary of alt-right discourse."

And this is an awful and really condescending word. Can you please stop referring to everyone who doesn't view this from your particular perspective as though we were dull, unenlightened, and un-hip? I get that it makes you feel "special" and all that, but it's a term associated with cultures such as that of Incels, and it makes me want to throw something at my screen.

Oh, and just in passing . . . can we please stop referring to a*eplay in SL as "pedophilia"? Those who engage in this might or might not be "pedophiles" (I am not qualified to judge), but RPing a*eplay is no more actual pedophilia, than RPing "r*pe" is actual r*pe. It's a representation of it -- there are no actual children involved. Almost no one here is going to equate BDSM roleplay with actual sexual violence -- why are some of us equating a*eplay with actual child abuse? I don't say this to "excuse" a*eplay: it's awful, socially dangerous and harmful, and also (less importantly) not good for the platform. But it's not the same thing.

So, to summarize a bit. Are Child Avatars of any age still permitted? Yes. This remains unchanged. Can Child Avatars continue to interact with those representing Adults? Yes. This remains unchanged. Are there any new restrictions on the kind of RP that Child Avatars can engage in? No, although any RP must now be in Moderate- or General-rated regions. "Family" RP, for instance, is still permitted. This remains unchanged. Are there new restrictions on where Child Avatars can be? Yes. Adult-rated areas are characterized primarily by the fact that public sexuality and/or violence is permitted within them; because Child Avatars are not (and have not, for some time) been permitted near public sexuality, they are now restricted from entering Adult areas. This represents a change to old policies. Are there new restrictions on what Child Avatars can wear? Yes. Child avatars are no longer allowed to be nude, and must, beginning in July, wear skins with baked-in "modesty layers." They must also not wear clothing or attachments that represent or that accentuate the genital areas. This represents a change to old policies. Are Child Avatars allowed to be present around nudity? No. This represents a change to old policies. Have the penalties for which Child Avatars are liable should they contravene these rules changed? No. This remains unchanged, although there are a few new categories for which penalties can be assessed (see Adult regions, and nudity, above.) Has the way in which abuse reports lodged against Child Avatars are judged by LL changed? No. This remains unchanged. Has the appeal process for ARs changed? No. This remains unchanged. Has there been any change in ability of landowners to restrict the access of Child Avatars to their land changed? No. This remains unchanged. Most of this remains unchanged. Again, this all seems to me very doable, surely, although some clarifications from LL (particularly with regard to the modesty layer) would be appreciated. What have I missed?