[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

1 minute ago, stlshayne said:

I truly feel like if LL wanted away with child avatars we would have gotten different rules. They had time to think about this.

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.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

Just now, Persephone Emerald said:

1984

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

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

1 minute ago, Asdrea Evergarden said:

The ones to decide if something is a breach are LL support. We just report situations we believe they're a breach.

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.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

1 minute ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

Since it's apparently so difficult to define what should be considered a "child avatar" can we just ban genitalia instead, it's far more easily recognisable and frankly a lot of the stuff it gets used for is kinda icky anyway?!  

Sure, and have every avatar in SL lurching around cross-legged and cursing that they drank so much coffee?

I think not!

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

Just now, BilliJo Aldrin said:

they better mandate modesty skins for ALL under 18's

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."

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

2 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

I did ask them exactly where these 120,000 child avatars were hiding, and they claimed they were hiding in a couple of dozen school sims.

 

I laughed so hard, I really did.

 

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

[Oh my Gawd! - Totally unOfficial Pet Peeve Thread.]

7 hours ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

Peeve:  My neighbor, who raises chickens, can kill them for dinner.  But I cannot kill the bunnies running around my back yard.

Oh yeah, supposed to be an SL peeve:  Geez these forums........  Now I remember why I avoided most threads for many months.

 

ETA:  I have actually learned that if I can catch said bunnies, since they are destroying my lawn, I actually can kill them.  However, since I do not like eating rabbit, I'd have to find a proper way to dispose of them.

NOT BUNNIES!!!!!!!!

😮😡

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

3 minutes ago, Alwin Alcott said:

the problem is, i don't see mentioned that it applies to child avi's only. If that would be included i'd agree.
If those q/a is in chapters it could be under a title, but that got lost in the quote or.. isn't there and it would be to general.

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.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

1 minute ago, Coffee Pancake said:

Why .. LL could have conversational chat logs from all of us going back 20 years that they own entirely. That's AI gold.

AI trained on SL chat . . .

Now THAT is a dystopian nightmare.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

3 minutes ago, stlshayne said:

Is it really not obvious the person thinks AI should monitor all our our DMs and we need a social credit system is being facetious?

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

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

13 minutes ago, Daniel Regenbogen said:

Best solution for LL: Have an AI monitor *all* conversation in open chat and IM! They really want to catch and fight pedos? That's the tool to do it. And it is very fair, it targets *all* residents. When some keywords are triggered, the AI will check the appearance of the involved residents.  I'm sure it will make those happy who say "Every little step to make it harder for those perverts is great.".

Hm, LL could bundle it with some social scoring. Someone helps a newbie? Give him some points. Someone runs an inworld charity? Give him some points. Someone encroaches a neighboring parcel with trees? Take away some points. If you have lots of points, you get some goodies. If you have a negative number, you get suspended for a day. China is doing that in RL, so why not try it out in SL?

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!"

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

1 hour ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

So, according to the new TOS, modesty layers cannot be flesh-toned and avatars are not allowed to wear any attachments or clothing layers meant to signify genitalia, however there's no mention of flesh-toned clothing in general.

I assume that's because LL don't want to have to produce a color chart illustrating the required hue, saturation and luminance value shifts necessary to comply with the TOS? Or maybe it's just that they can't be bothered to fix the environmental lighting issue that causes mesh clothing to drastically change color at different times of day?

I can only hope that, since LL have stated that child avatars are not allowed to be in the presence of nudity, they intend to ban all the mesh clothing that magically disappear once you move your camera a few meters away because the creator didn't create proper LOD models?!

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

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

6 minutes ago, Wincil said:

Well It's not really my intention to throw a  abusive insult or personal insults this is getting to the point it becomes harassment and I rather be left alone and not be hassled.

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.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

7 minutes ago, Wincil said:

I don't think you even know what childlike means again it is a stylized head get it though your thick skull.

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?

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

21 minutes ago, Leslie Trihey said:

It's literally a standard anime face.

This is Misato Katsuragi a 29 year old character from the anime Neon Genesis Evangelion, with a standard anime face. Only real difference between her face and Wincils face is make up.

 

 

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.

[How does your avatar look today ?]

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

2 minutes ago, Wincil said:

How is it an condescending word term associated with cultures such as that of Incels? I'm not saying that  they are dull, unenlightened, and un-hip.

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."
 

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

1 minute ago, Wincil said:

normies

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.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

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 what changed in the Terms of Service?]

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?

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

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.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

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.")

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

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.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

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?

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

4 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

There is also more to SL than forum debate games.

What does that even mean?