[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

2 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

First they came for the kiddie avatars, but because I am not a kiddie, I did nothing.

Next they came for the Nekos, but because I am not a Ne . . .

 

OMG, wait! I DO HAVE A NEKO OUTFIT!!!

😮

You actually draw a line from LL to the Nazis? /me coughs.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

1 minute ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

It is now open season on child avatars

Probably. But without people running and fostering child avatars while generating lots of unrest and outrage all over the grid there would be no open season. The LL action is a reaction, and most likely one one which could not be avoided.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

6 minutes ago, brodiac90 said:

What happens in principle and what happens in practice are two very different things. I'm struggling to see how any content creator for child avatars is going to be able to come up with a modesty layer that is never removable in the allloted time. Even if they do, the amount of content (skins) and fitmesh it will break will be HUGE. If creators have to go down the route of adding mesh underwear that is fixed to the body and locked in, that's going to make pretty much every pair of jeans, trousers, shorts and swimwear unwearable due to clipping issues. It will be even worse if a chest modesty layer is required too. 

My biggest fear is that it will simply be too impractiable, i.e. child avis will be banned in all but name. 

Well, be patient, you´ll grow up and in a few years you´ll be rated adult.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

Just now, Zalificent Corvinus said:

The "problem" is the ones who are p*ssed off they they can't go to adult destinations anymore or be naked, are claiming that "all females under 7 ft tall will be banned" and "height varies depending what units you measure in" and a load of other nonsense.

The funniest nonsense is claiming a child like avatar isn't child like if it 5'4" tall, as if there were some "official adult height" which there isn't.

 

 

 

Yeah. My latest experience with one of them was: She got caught on a posbeball containing adult anims and perfermed some more or less  explicit actions with a  pony there (moderate sim). I adressed her and asked her for showing at least some kind of conciousness regarding the problems running a child avi in SL. The answer was "I am a child, how can you expect that?"

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

1 minute ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

Scripted height checkers use an LSL command that pull down information about an avatars collision capsule, not the actual prim height of the avatar. Problem is that "height only goes to the center of your head, thats why the red and white fossil is about 3 inches shorter than the others. There is also some space under the capsule, that has to be added, FS eventually got around to doing that, the official fail-viewer might have by now, but I wouldn't bet on it, it's only been about 10 years.

The third ne is a broken piece of badly coded ancient drek, ditch it.

The first one probably uses some of Henri's code, since it's open source.

 

Rezz a prim, make it phantom and 50 percent transparent, scale it on the z axis until it matches the body height and one gets the exact height (in meters). I don´t get what the problem with heigth should be, anyway. A 50 cm tall fully breast/bottom loaded kupra with a lascive smile on it´s balloon lips certainly isn´t a child avatar.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

2 minutes ago, Leslie Trihey said:

Oh back in the day I was quite active in the Bible Study Discussion Meeting community. A community with some of the strictest rules for appearance on the grid. My Kemono variant's were good enough for them, never had a problem with my lagomorph, fox, nor human or other Kemono av variants.

The catholic church has studied the bible for 2000 years and massive problem with pedos. /Me shrugs

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

2 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

No doubt some will go on witch hunts.  I just hope it's not too many, and that the least amount of child avatars as possible will be affected by it.

I hope that each report LL receives will be investigated thoroughly because, as we can see on this forum, what constitutes a 'child' in appearance is not always clear.

No neeed for witch hunts. If a child avatar gets landed on adult rated sims by it´s pilot, abuse report, eject, ban and done. And trust me, people know very well what makes a child avatar and what not. And so does LL.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

2 minutes ago, Leslie Trihey said:

Punishing a group of people for something that MIGHT happen worked well in the past. (It didn't)

If you feel punished by being held to avoid the sexualised display of a child and by being held to avoid promoting and accessing  adult rated content and sites while playing a child there must be something wrong with your interpretation.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

1 minute ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

You don't know this. It's obviously large enough LL changed the entire TOS for it.  AND one person engaging in this activity is too much.

Well, judged on what goes on on the SL Marketplace and In.World Fashion/Rezzables markets it must be commercially insignificant. Also, Linden Lab did not change the entire ToS, but only a small portion. No other game or virtual environment on the planet which could be compared to SL ever allowed sexualised display of children, btw. For a very good reason.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

3 minutes ago, Vanity Fair said:

On a related note, I wonder if Velour and other (adult) skin makers are prepared that they might have to make new skins for child/teen avatars with the modesty panel, which would be sold separately. I would assume that most teen avatars (i.e. those who present as being under 18) would be using adult skins, right? Obviously, creators like ToodleeDoo would just replace their entire skin line, but where there could be some crossover between child/teen and adult, I could see this happening, right?

My guess is that the adult skin creators won´t bother much. It´s not their problem when someone uses their skins for graphic display of a sexualised child. Also, the ***** crowd is insignificant by the numbers, i doubt that the additional workwould pay of for anyone.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

6 minutes ago, Baby Simp said:

These are just a few things one can do to keep yourself safe from any predators or age players that are still on the grid. Hope this helps.

Stay at general rated sims, follow the new rules and no one will complain. That´s what helps.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

2 minutes ago, Leslie Trihey said:

Personally I think the modesty layer rule is excessive for four main reasons:

1: People are more then capable of covering up with BOM layers themselves and those who don't can face the "find out" portion of effing round if they get caught.

BOM layers won´t do. Required isa skin (patches included) which cannot be removed. When you use BOM layers you remove the patches. There is no effing around. It´s plain and simple: If someone wants to ***** the someone has to use a child avi lacking any sexual attributes. Also has to trash each and any profile link to adult rated or clearly sexual content (places, stores, groups, whatever). If someone refuses to do so, the someone must have an interest in sexualised child behavior or the graphic display of a sexualised child.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

2 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

Also they are not really kids. Can we please stop calling them that, and just say child avatar. 

Fine, then...without child avaters promoting sexual behavior and activities there will be no pedos goin after then. Better?

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

2 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Am surprised as I haven't seen any posts in this thread about how one would filter out and ban those who do prey on kids. Contrary to what seems popular opinion, the ones taking on a younger look, rarely approach or chat with others like them other then to compliment a look or dress.

Without kids promoting sexual activities or behavior there will be no pedos goin after them. Pretty simple, eh?

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

9 minutes ago, Daniel Regenbogen said:

That's what they claimed all along - but when it involved kid avatars it so far was more like "shoot first and never ask questions later".

How do you know? It ever took massive and clear violations of the ToS to get banned from SL for *****. You are friends with people who were banned? How many? What for exactly?

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

6 minutes ago, brodiac90 said:

The problem is before the TOS change it was debatable, now there is no debate. 

It never was debateable. My sim, my parcel, my rules. An owner ever could ban a mouse for being a mouse. The mice only used the theoretical access permission for pestering the owners with their standard "BUT THE ToS SAY!!!!" rants. I can imagine that many of the new users, who were not used to the agressive behavior of the mouse minority faction and did not simply ban and mute them on first contact went to the Lab and asked for clarification. Logs included. And at some point the straw broke the camel´s neck.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

7 minutes ago, Starberry Passion said:

These kids look like kids, that face looks like an adult face that I posted.

That face looks childish, and even if one´s view is distorted enough to recognise it as being "adult", it appears to be childish in combination with the child avatar. Come on....seriously.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

3 minutes ago, brodiac90 said:

Trying to think positively, I hope that people will treat child avis better now that the rules are clearer and that people don't feel so threatened. 

Other way around. The vast majority of the age player community is not known for acting respectful.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

4 minutes ago, Extrude Ragu said:

In real life, there's a good chance there's someone having sex nearby right this moment and you don't even know about it. We don't all lose our minds. Do we all banish our children from the city?

In RL one cannot zoom into someone´s bedroom. From miles away. Also, in RL quite a lot of creeps doing the same creepy things they do in SL would be banned from RL by some judge. Especially in regards to creepy child things.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

1 minute ago, Daniel Regenbogen said:

If I want to buy for example a teen bedroom for *my* avatar, I want to check it out with *my* avatar to see if it actually works the way I like it.

Check it out with a clearly adult looking avi. You heard of the "Outfits" folder?

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

4 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

Linden Lab is only concerned with laws against what is depicted. RL behavior has nothing to do with Second Life.

Maybe not in the US. In most European countries certain purely virtual acts (first of all performing sexual activities with child avatars included) performed by adults (not even with REAL children at the keyboard involved) are a criminal act. Whoever thinks that ***** in SL is a safe harbor for pedos is plain wrong.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

7 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

I think the child avatars that they are addressing with these changes are before puberty child avatars and not avatars that look like they are under 18..

Child avatar is pretty much it's own genre in this world.

Tiny minority, loud, agressive, pushing. Instead of being glad that they are not banned from entire SL or at least Moderate/Adult now the tiny minority tries to generate a huge wave now. Good that they do not get away with it anymore.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

34 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

...can't just take a picture of a naked child avatar who has had his/her clothing and underwear derendered and the picture then submitted with an AR. Governance will not have to determine if the child was truly naked or just derendered  by the photographer to appear that way.

Wrong. When the skin under the (derendered) attachments has no modesty patches the account of that age player will be dust.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

3 minutes ago, Daniel Regenbogen said:

But if I re-enacted my totally innocent and sexfree RL kid summer fun in SL I would be punished for that.

What´s your problem with the modesty patch when you are so modest and sexfree? Explain.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

32 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

Ultimately, it really must be the whole avatar appearance that matters… although child avatars won't be able to shop for immodest skins, so that's a thing I guess.

Child avatars on sale come with skins. The now necessary patches, along with the skin,  "may not be removed". "Removed" includes the patches, right? The more I think on the policy changes, the more they make sense to me. Basically, using a Belleza skin on a child avatar is a violation of the ToS now.