Jump to content

Scylla Rhiadra

Resident
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    20,255

  • Joined

  • Days Won

    184

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Scylla Rhiadra

    So what changed in the Terms of Service?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    10 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

    The problem is that, LL (or whoever wrote these rules) seem to be not aware that child avatars are not just made using specific mesh bodies made for child avatars but also from adult bodies, furry bodies, anime bodies, etc or child specific skins.

    I think they are aware. They just don't care that much about skins for adult bodies used for teens (or even tweens) because it's easy to make the argument -- or at least, plausible -- that any avatar wearing such a body is, de facto, representing an adult. A 16 year old girl with breasts is likely to look sufficiently like an 18 year old girl with breasts that, regardless of what age she is RPing or representing -- the argument can be made that she's 18+

    It's much much more difficult, if not impossible, to make that same argument when the body has been particularly designed to look like a child.

    What LL is worried about is less actually inappropriate sexual roleplay in such cases, than in how it looks.

    I am a bit surprised that they haven't made mention of furries (and anime).

    • Like 9

    So what changed in the Terms of Service?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    3 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

    This is why I am against permabans for any reason.

    They don't work. They have never worked. Especially when it comes to dealing with the actual bad apples, they just come right back.

    The honest ones stay away and get to deal with emotional trauma and ptsd.

    A very well known (and oddly popular) forum "personality" was permabanned about 12 or so years ago. He refused to go quietly into that good night, but reappeared here, on the forums, using literally a dozen or more new accounts. He'd pop back in again after getting banned, hang around for a few months until he was once again detected, and banned yet again . . . and then rinse and repeat for about 4 years I think.

    They couldn't keep him off the forum, yet alone in-world.

    • Like 5

    A Balm Thread - Tell me some Good News about Second Life

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    4 hours ago, CaerolleClaudel said:

    I *would* be curious to know that the 'doom and gloom' is if someone wants to DM me? I just returned to the Forum, and noticed the 1200 reply thread on TOS, but I have no idea what that is about or if all the doom and gloom is related to that. I did also see something about Tilia being sold, which seems indicate things not going so well at LL, but I dunno.

    It's about changes to rules for child avatars. It's not really doom and gloom -- just a bit of hurt feelings or confusion (which I sort of get), and some triumphalism on the other side (which is unnecessary and unhelpful).

    And welcome back, Caer! 🙂

    • Like 1

    So what changed in the Terms of Service?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    9 minutes ago, Madi Melodious said:

    The modesty layer isn't called for when alpha will do the job just fine.   The modesty layer isn't going to change anything.  They don't want child av's to be nude in public or private.   You are simply not going to be able to enforce that last one if someone is bound and determined to break the rules in private.

    Agreed. I think that this is one thing that they could change that would really make a difference in how this is perceived.

    • Like 6

    So what changed in the Terms of Service?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted · Edited by Scylla Rhiadra
    Typo

    6 minutes ago, Daniel Regenbogen said:

    Because there is *no* adult content or action at that location?

    Not every Adult region is a 24/7 strip club or bawdy house. But in such places sex can happen literally anywhere, at any time (within whatever limitations have been set by the region or parcel owner, but even then they need to be there to enforce them).

    Congrats on having never tripped over sex in an A rated region, I guess? But your luck is going to run out, because sex most assuredly does happen in such places, often quite publicly, and if you suddenly appear there with a child avatar, you're running a VERY real risk of getting ARed for it.

    What people often don't get about ratings is that they are not "punishments." They are a tool so that we, as residents, can make informed decisions about where we want to go, and what we want to see or experience.

    Not using them to make intelligent decisions is just foolish. And you're going to get burned.

    • Like 13
    • Thanks 3

    So what changed in the Terms of Service?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    5 minutes ago, Daniel Regenbogen said:

    In the whole of Germany there is exactly *one* street where kids are not allowed, for good reason. There are lots of buildings where kids are not allowed, also for good reason. But that doesn't mean that they are not allowed in the street infront of them or in the neighboring building were no such good reasons are to be found.

    The whole POINT of A rated areas is that, in them, you can have sex in the street.

    That is literally one of the primary differences between A and M ratings.

    • Like 9
    • Thanks 2

    So what changed in the Terms of Service?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    8 minutes ago, Daniel Regenbogen said:

    Because in that region something (insert whatever non-adult place or item you like) caught my interest and I simply don't check for symbolic letters without any real meaning?

    They DO have real meaning. Yes, one isn't going to see sex going on in an Adult region whenever one is visiting there. And maybe there is never any sex there. But assuming that "A" is meaningless is like looking at a bed with no one sleeping in it, and concluding that it's therefore only a "symbolic bed."

    I'm sorry, but a lot of your objections to this seem to be built around your own somewhat lazy or lackadaisical approach to SL. "I can't be bothered to do this thing, therefore the rules are a violation of my personal freedom to ignore rules." That sort of thing.

    I'd strongly suggest you start looking at that little letter at the top of the screen. As most of us do.

    • Like 9
    • Thanks 1

    So what changed in the Terms of Service?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    Just now, Coffee Pancake said:

    There are plenty who will take this as opportunity to go hunting or 'report griefing'.

     

    While I don't for a moment doubt that there are some trigger-happy anti-child avi people out there, the suggestion that people will be "hunting" for infractions to AR I find suspect. Every time there is some change like this to the ToS, I hear dire warnings of "AR parties" and the like.

    I've never seen nor heard of one. Ever.

    • Like 3

    So what changed in the Terms of Service?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    Just now, Arielle Popstar said:

    What is the problem? Kathlen offered the forum what she is going to do for her part in cleaning up the grid, so what is the problem with asking for some clarification like she is of the Lab? Remember, an AR stars with the residents. Without an AR, the likelihood is that no child avi will be subjected to an investigation or banning so I don't see the problem with asking those who initiate AR's what they will use as a determining factor or factors.

    You are the new self-appointed chair of the Committee on Un-Child Avatar Friendly Activities, then?

    • Like 2
    • Haha 3

    So what changed in the Terms of Service?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    5 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

    That is up to the creator. They just need a modestly layer baked in. 

    The problem, Sammy, is that if the creator gets it "wrong" in LL's eyes -- if Governance deems that the modesty layer is not "modest" enough -- then it's the wearer who will also suffer, either by being slapped with a suspension, or even just left out of pocket for the price of a skin they can't use.

    There needs to be a standard established by LL.

    • Like 7
    • Thanks 1

    So what changed in the Terms of Service?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    1 minute ago, Arielle Popstar said:

    Will you be actively hunting down child avi's?

    What factors will you use to determine complying avi's, whether Child or late teen?

    Do you often attend places where child avi's are in attendance? ( I hardy ever see one unless I specifically go to places where they congregate)

    Ye gods, Arielle.

    There is NO indication she, or anyone else, will be "hunting down" child avis. In fact, Kathlen's direct remarks make it very clear she won't.

    NO ONE is required to submit their personal list of "Things that make this a child" -- to you or anyone else. And as Rowan and others have said, it wouldn't matter if they did: it's Governance who makes that determination.

    And Kathlen has also answered your last question. You can turn off the spotlight over her head now.

    caa63482a5623d6a48ac80da5975fb30.png

    • Like 8

    So what changed in the Terms of Service?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

    The fact the "child community" is reacting negatively is, of course, not a surprise.  It could be going a lot worse!

     

    Most of the child RPers here are, I think, justifiably expressing concerns about a few ambiguities in the rules as currently laid out; not a lot of them are hitting back against the overall tendency, or the specifics about things like A rated regions.

    And there is some sense of victimization, which I think personally is misplaced, but is also completely understandable. If LL produced a new set of rules pertaining just to women in SL (relating to, I don't know, boob size or something), I'd likely be . . . "annoyed" as well.

    • Like 5
    • Thanks 1

    So what changed in the Terms of Service?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    Just now, Love Zhaoying said:

    I think we are fortunate to have a reasonable set of FAQ's as a starting point.

    Yeah, honestly, I'm pleasantly surprised by how this is being handled, mostly.

    I wonder if the child avi "community" was consulted beforehand? Not sure how you do that exactly, but there are certainly some high profile members they know well, such Marianne McCann.

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1

    So what changed in the Terms of Service?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    7 minutes ago, MissSweetViolet said:

    a few are implying the whole kid community is against this

    Sorry, that was certainly not the intended implication. It's been very clear even here that a great many child RPers support measures intended to prevent sexual a*eplay in general, and the restrictions on A rated areas in particular. I have no way of knowing how many do, of course, but I don't think LL would have proceeded without being reasonably sure that most of these changes would be not merely acceptable to, but maybe even supported by the community.

    10 minutes ago, MissSweetViolet said:

    What most of us are upset about is the lack of clarity on what LL thinks this should look like.

    I completely agree, and have said as much. LL needs to clarify this soon.

    11 minutes ago, MissSweetViolet said:

    I think a skin with built in layer should be good enough, but if they state not removable, then to me, skin doesn't qualify because you can swap a skin.

    Yeah, this is the part of the new rules that I think is mostly unnecessary window-dressing. There is literally no way, short of forcing literally every mesh body maker on the grid to change their mesh designs to incorporate a full proof modesty layer, of ensuring that there is no work-around for someone who wants to evade this requirement. Changing a skin -- from one with a modesty layer to one without -- is almost exactly as easy as removing BOM panties.

    I think this one, as I've suggested, is less about actually discouraging a*eplay than it is about appearances -- as for instance the fact that, in theory, every skin for a child avi on the MP will, as of July 1, appear in the ad as having built-in panties (or whatever). That's a visible sign that LL has "done something concrete."

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 2
    • Haha 1

    So what changed in the Terms of Service?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted · Edited by Scylla Rhiadra
    Missing word

    7 minutes ago, Leslie Trihey said:

    Yes, thankfully the attempt failed. And like I said, I hope I'm wrong about this being a slippery slope.

    Every new rule is a potential "slippery slope." Even relaxing rules can seem like slippery slopes in some contexts.

    I think the intent of these new rules is very clear, and that's particularly signaled by the fact that they could have been much more restrictive than they actually were. And, yes, there are some in-world who will go overboard on ARs now, but they are likely the same people who were over-compensating about child avatars before. The fact that LL clearly does not want to get rid of child RP (because they could have just done that if they wanted) means that absurd ARs are going to get dustbinned. Governance is going to be overworked for the next few months, but they are not going to be sweeping the grid clean of child avatars.

    • Like 4
    • Thanks 1
×
×
  • Create New...