[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

19 minutes ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

Yes, we just need to get some reaaally long mesh trench coats and we can stand on each others shoulders and be taller than all of them, and then we can finally find out what they're hiding on the top shelf!

As someone who is relatively tall in RL (5'10"), I have to say I feel a little excluded and discriminated against here.

(Actually, it HAS always felt a bit weird to feel "short" in SL, where I am the same height as in RL, but still have to jump up to reach door handles in some places.)

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

Thanks Fluffy! I tagged you on this because I wanted to hear what you had to say about it!

4 hours ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

LL need to provide more clarity and also make sure everyone is adhering to the rules which govern content allowed on parcels because now bending those rules can potentially lead to some unsuspecting resident losing their account (at least in the minds of those affected by the latest changes to the TOS).

I think that the part I've highlighted in red is key: there are things here that need to be spelled out much more clearly -- less because we want to handcuff Governance and remove their ability to use their judgment, and more to 1) ensure that landowners understand the system and don't overreact to what they may perceive as perils, and 2) to reassure those representing as children that SL hasn't become even more of a minefield for them than it was before. Which is of course exactly what you say.

And central to that clarification should be this point:

4 hours ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

If LL are going to restrict access to areas for certain residents based on maturity ratings it needs to be made clear to every SL resident that breaking any rule regarding maturity ratings can lead to permanent removal from the platform.  If residents using a child avatar can potentially lose everything by being somewhere they shouldn't isn't it only fair that residents that knowingly place content prohibited by the maturity rating suffer the same fate?

So, yes, it needs to be emphasized that the onus is not merely on child avatars, but on everyone to ensure that everyone else is "safe." That's one reason I said somewhere waaaaay up above that I'd AR an adult avatar who undressed after knowingly TPing or entering into proximity of a child avatar. Because someone who is potentially endangering nearby child avatars by their behaviour, apparel, or whatever should be held responsible for that, including suspensions or, in extreme cases, even bans. So, to use Qie's example

52 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

Little Johnny dressed in his Sunday best is attending bible study on an unsupervised M-rated public parcel, no suggestion nudity should be expected, when suddenly Woody MacNoob arrives fresh from orientation with a torch in one hand and a proud freenis protruding from his pubis. Bible study isn't over, but Woody shows no inclination (nor ability) to teleport from the scene. Now what? Johnny is in the presence of nudity with no reasonable expectation that will change. He's violating TOS, whether anybody files an AR or not, and if they do, whether Governance for some reason decides to spend an hour on this one report to uncover innocence.

 . . . I think it needs to be made clear that the person at fault here is Woody MacNoob. And by "made clear," I don't merely mean that the any penalty exacted by Governance falls in his head -- it has to be clear to the community as a whole that Little Johnny is the one with the "rights" in this instance.

Ensuring that people recognize that is going to be difficult, because it does represent a cultural shift in SL's approach to such things, but it's really important because it will also address the sense, as Qie also says, that Little Johnny and his pint-sized friends are "second class residents on M-rated land." I'm not sure how best to broadcast that message, but we DO need to get away from the prevalent idea, seen in this thread as well as in-world, that child avatars are a "bother," an annoyance, "special cases" that we all wish we didn't have to "deal with." Or, as you put it:

4 hours ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

I don't want to see anyone disadvantaged or unjustly excluded from SL but I feel like all of the responsibility is being placed on the shoulders of a minority of residents, meanwhile others are applauding LL's attempts to clean up SL only as long as they don't have to suffer any hardship or inconvenience themselves.

So, yes, this is a long response more or less agreeing with you.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

59 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

It certainly is but the new rule clearly state what adults are NOT allowed to do in regards to children.  That part, IMO, was sorely needed.

 

33 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

I just wanted to expand a little on a subject recently brought up here.

The new rules also empower child avatars more with clearly defined actions AGAINST them that are not allowed and reportable. 

 

Sharing fantasies about or promoting engagement in child sexual exploitation.

Sexualized commentaries about or directed at child-presenting avatars and/or any individual that identifies as a child.

Links to third-party sites that host child sexual exploitation material.

Expressing a desire to obtain materials that feature child sexual exploitation.

Recruiting, advertising or expressing an interest in a sex act involving a child, or in harboring and/or transporting a child for sexual purposes.

Sending sexually explicit media to a child or child-presenting avatar.

Engaging or trying to engage a child or child-presenting avatar in a sexually explicit conversation.

Trying to obtain sexually explicit media from a child or child-presenting avatar, or trying to engage a child or child-presenting avatar in sexual activity through blackmail or other incentives.

Identifying alleged victims of childhood sexual exploitation by name or image.

Promoting or normalizing sexual attraction to minors as a form of identity or sexual orientation.

Thank you Rowan.

I just want to highlight this quickly as I wander by my computer for a moment, because it's really important and we're sort of skimming over it.

The new rules also protect child avis. And empower them.

That's all.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

2 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

why is LL doing this?

Because, as I and others have said over and over again here, LL needs to improve the optics of this. They need to show that they are "doing something."

And . . . arguably, they are at least making it more difficult to engage in these activities.

ETA: But I agree that the "modest layers" thing is the most dubious part of these new rules.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

6 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

they might have undressed while you were still an orange cloud, so they didn't know you were a kid.

Then I could counsel the adult to have some faith in the ability of Governance to make an intelligent decision, just as we are all here arguing that child avatars should do. I imagine that the actions of said person subsequent to recognizing that they were in the presence of a child would make their intent pretty clear. What's good for the goose . . .

8 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

Are you trying to adocate war between kids and adults?

Of course! As you have astutely divined, that is my entire intent in posting in this thread!

 

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

Just now, MissSweetViolet said:

I once met someone who was a tree, they were pretty fun to talk too.

THAT would be amusing. I'd love to get to know a witty and engaging tree.

All mine are very dull, and obsessed with getting sunlight.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

5 minutes ago, Chery Amore said:

Are there infant avatars out there run by adults?

Chery, there are houseplants run by RL adults.

Seriously.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

1 minute ago, Vivienne Schell said:

And what for would you AR the adult avi player? For executing his right to go nude? Or what exactly?

Were I on a child avi in a Moderate region, and an adult undressed after arriving, and in obvious proximity to me, I'd AR him.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

1 minute ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

Not weird. 75% of toddlers are breastfed.

According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), a toddler is a child between the ages of 1 and 3. Some say that a child becomes a toddler when they turn one year old.

Yeah. I have a niece who was breastfed to the age of 4, which, I'll admit, I thought a little excessive, but it was the child's, not her mother's choice. (Her older sister had stopped just past the age of 1).

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

1 minute ago, Persephone Emerald said:

(Google it)

Eh, no thanks!

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

6 minutes ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

Child avatars are only allowed on G rated land.

I think this is the "nuke it from orbit" option, and would effectively kill off the community of child avis.

It's also overkill because, as you say,

7 minutes ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

***play can happen on any rated land, with any avatar (with or without a modesty panel) at any time of the day or night.

Nothing LL proposes solves that actual issue.  I'm not even sure it CAN be solved.

If it's not actually accomplishing anything more, I don't see the point of extending the ban to M rated areas.

And, honestly, again, there should be no problems with child avis in M rated areas 99% of the time. There are a lot of really "but it could happen!" edgecase instances being posted here, but I've seen nothing that I think would seriously jeopardize a child avi if it happened in an "M" rated area.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

Just now, Coffee Pancake said:

Well they aren't aimed at bad actors, they are aimed at the avatars the bad actors want to bad act with.

In instances of actual a*eplay, as opposed to fraudulent ARs by griefers employing either adult or child avis, both the "adult" and the "child" are "bad actors." The point of these rules isn't to either enable or stop griefing; it's to discourage a type of RP that is, by definition, mutually consensual, and that involves a violation of the ToS by both partners.

The new rules aren't "targeting" child RPers who don't engage in a*eplay. What they do functionally do is inconvenience them -- possibly a lot.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

14 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

What if you are a mer-mommy with a mer-child? Should you both be expected to wear scratchy sea shells or starfish covering your nipples?

(In case it's not clear, I think topless should be allowed in Moderate regions, no matter the age or gender of one's avatar.)

While I'm a little reluctant to add a new complication to this discussion (we seem to be having difficulties comprehending pretty basic things here sometimes), what about breast feeding? Someone mentioned this much earlier in this thread in the context of family RP, and I thought . . . interesting question! I actually have a pic representing breast feeding -- it's even possible (although I don't remember for sure) that I posted it in the Adult pic thread. That was using a prim baby . . . but I'm not sure how permissible even that is now, yet alone RPing a breast feeding.

Unsurprisingly, my own view is that breast feeding is inherently non-sexual, but not everyone thinks so, and there are associated kinks.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

8 minutes ago, Angelina Sinclair said:

You can, but you can't setup ban lines. Plus anything you have rezzed is still visible. So if you have naughty posters or a sex dungeon in your linden home.. well they can still cam in and see.

Those things aren't likely to be an issue to child avis, though, whereas sunbathing nude on your front lawn might be.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

Just now, Persephone Emerald said:

That's not a problem if you turn on Parcel Privacy. If your neighbor kid then comes onto your property selling Girl Scout cookies, they are the one who needs to leave.

A question. I've never had a LH, so I am not sure of the answer: can you not turn off the ability of others to see into your parcel in Belli?

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

3 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

TBH i thought that was all for the Adult Desgination. And Nudity and stuff, was only allowed if it was done behind closed doors. 

See Indy Melody's post, which includes an excerpt from the ToS (or CS, maybe) above.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

Just now, brodiac90 said:

So basically, G land is the only place where kid avis can reasonably expect to be safe from nudity. 

G land is the only place where anyone can reasonably expect to be safe from nudity. That is the point of "G" rated areas.

I really do think it's pretty clear from the FAQ that you do not have to worry about "accidental exposure" to nudity in an M rated area. In fact, "accidental exposure" is actually the term used in that document. I think we need to remember that there are actual humans judging the validity of ARs, with an ability (presumably and hopefully) to apply a bit of commonsense and critical thinking to what has been reported. And that they also have access to a pretty full record of what went down there.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

10 minutes ago, brodiac90 said:

I honestly don't see the point of G M A anymore. They should just make it G and A and keep kids on G if M isn't even safe under the new TOS changes. 

I want to quickly address this, and a similar suggestion from @Fluffy Sharkfin earlier in this thread.

No. Because there are grey areas here. My own parcel is "G" rated; I'd probably prefer that it were "M" but it makes no practical difference to me. But there is a difference between a region where sex is going on behind closed doors only, and one in which it's happening on a front lawn, or where your next door neighbour is an open and public BDSM venue. And there IS a difference between a non-sexual "nude beach," and one where sex is permitted. Losing "M" means eliding all of the nuance and gradients in experience that we currently enjoy.

There's another point, too: "A" ratings apply not merely to sexuality but also to "extreme" or "graphic" violence. (Which is stupid, and I've complained about this many times since 2009, but there you are.) Getting rid of "M" would mean that anyone who wanted to express their sexuality, even in private, would be potentially exposed to some pretty nasty stuff, including but not limited to Dolcett, snuff, r*pe play, or even just non-sexual graphic violence. And for some people that's not merely unpleasant: it can actually be extraordinarily triggering. (And yes, I mean "triggering" in a technical sense, and not just "Ewww, that's gross").

Removing "M" removes a really important tool that we all have to customize our experience of SL, and ensure that it is not merely pleasant, but also "safe."

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

Just now, Arielle Popstar said:

Then it would be your word against theirs!

No it wouldn't, because LL has access to the records of what went on there.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

Oof.

I really do feel we are now repeating ourselves. I guess, as new people join the thread, that's somewhat inevitable, but still . . .

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

Just now, Arielle Popstar said:

for the purpose of the ToS which is what we are supposed to abide by, it is 18.

Phil said "age of consent." Or he tried to, but he's a terrible typist.

There is no "age of consent" in SL; that's an RL concept. There is instead a different demarcation associated with other types of things, including the legal age at which one can use adult content.

But whatevs.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

1 minute ago, Arielle Popstar said:

So 18. That includes a significant portion of residents if one looks at what is out and about Saturday Sale shopping.

16 in most places, Arielle -- including Canada. And lower in other places.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

2 minutes ago, brodiac90 said:

In that image I think you look like a very young adult, I can't put an age on it exactly but you look over 18. 

Yeah, I think so too. I'm not very worried. But it would be telling if people did start challenging me.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

2 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

When they start looking at IM history there is a much greater risk of vulnerability. They can then start spinning webs that could make one be seen as having engaged in something that was against some loose interpretation of the ToS.

Why would they do that, Arielle? LL hasn't been taken over by some sort of Moms for Liberty group: they're not on a crusade to get rid of child avatars or, I suspect, even a*play.

They are playing it safe for PR and legal reasons. That's all.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

Just now, brodiac90 said:

Maybe I'll just try and stick to G land beaches although I haven't found many in my time in SL although that may change with the new rules as everyone adjusts. 

I think it's unfortunate, but yes . . . for at least a while, until the furor dies down a little, I'd likely be a little extra cautious.

It'll be interesting . . . I have a "realistically" proportioned avi -- 180 cm -- with small breasts. And, although I don't wear anything that I think could be construed as "Lolita" or even anime, I DO wear things occasionally that are somewhat "younger" looking, as part of a fashion associated with the Riot Grrrl movement of the 90s.

I've never been questioned as to my age. I wonder if I will be now?