Vivienne Schell

I would not admit that I violate the ToS knowingly at a public forum.

Thing is that that no one signed the FAQ. Everyone signed the ToS. The FAQ does not really matter.

When I joined SL there were plenty of skins which had undies painted on them. I remember that I almost despaired when I tried to remove them....that was when I was an innocent virgin "girl next door", tho not underaged. Linden Lab probably digged these old nostalgic assets out of some old rotten forgotten server and thought "Yay!". Or not. Fact is that this is exactly what they mean by "baked on the skin".

However, according to grid survey there is a constant trend, A rated sims increase, M rated sims decrease, G rated stay more or less stable (due to the fact that they are almost exclusively residing on mainland). Why? Who knows? And who cares? Fact is that people set sims to A and these are mature enough to decide on that.

Don´t tell me you checked the content on like 15000 adult rated sims.

Leave that up to the ones who set sims to A.

Okay, I suggest you ask some german investors to build a german Second Life which suits your visions. Good Luck.

So you question the sense of each red light you see when you drive? And simply run over it if you do not understand the sense?

A place is Adult rated if it is set to Adult rated.

A skin is always removable, but it should not be removed from a child avatar. And it does not really matter if someone calls the modesty patches "bult in" or "baked on". That differnce in expression might be stuff for TV lawyer sagas at best. The ToS are very clear.

Read carefully: "a modesty layer which is baked into child avatar skins or bodies.."

2007: "The sky is falling, the sky is falling!" --- time warp -- 2024: "the sky is falling, the sky is falling!"

Apparently you got everything, and because you did you go to "elsewhere".

Bad or good taste taste never have been an issue.

Follow the new guidelines and you won´t get banned. If you refuse, your choice.

It isn´t necessary when they follow the new rules as they are. These claims are just another bogus made up by people who want to proceed with their "business as usual", whatever that might be.

I miss the "huge uproar" in SL. There isn´t any, neither on the forums nor inworld. 99 percent of users welcome the changes. The rest mutters on wordings or wahtever for whatever reason. Here at this forum it´s like 10 people repeating their opinion all over again. Face it, outside the a++player circuits and probably the circles of those who benefit by a++play no one really cares.

The rule is perfectly clear. Modesty patches on child avi must be baked on skin and must be mot removable. And done.

Why? Skin creators wil have to update their products within the next two months. If the skin creator of an a++player´s choice does not update, the a++player must switch to an updated one. Simple.

Residents presenting as Child Avatars shall be prohibited from the following: Entering any Region rated Adult. Residents must change to a non-child or non-childlike avatar to visit Adult rated regions. Engaging or participating in any event or location where nudity and/or sexual activity is present, encouraged and/or expected. Wearing genital/sexual attachments including clothing, attachments or HUDs created for and/or worn by child avatars to indicate genitalia, whether visible or not. Being fully nude. Child avatar content creators are required to add 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. Child avatars where the focal point of the body is on the breasts, pelvis, or buttocks

The larger picture tells the story, too. The more profile links to "hello daddy" venues or "toys for kids" stores and the like, the more likely people using "grey zone" avis will get booted.

Why would anyone press anyone to admit something? Eject, ban, mute and done. And in case of an obvioius ToS violation, AR.

I doubt that the one matter (Allegations) is connected to the other (Child Avatar Policies).

Excuse me, but following your argument: Who "dehumanises" here? If someone creates a child avatar in Second Life, isn´t that "dehumanising" a child, according to your theory?

Anime characters in japanese cartoons and movies are not driven by real humans like in Meta or SL. This is a major difference. I also agree that it is difficult to determine where art ends and where sexualised abuse starts. But you also should agree that a certain amount of self declared "Art Lovers" are all but "Art Lovers". And to risk our platforms by enabling these "Art Lovers" to enjoy their interpretation of "Art" without some reasonable restrictions is stupid.