Innula Zenovka

With respect, you know of one child av who says that's what they were banned for. You have no way of knowing the whole story.

Since it nowhere mentions listing things on the marketplace I don't see how it can affect what you list there one way or the other.

I'm aware that, in the words of the wiki, and that, for an emitter whose color parameter is vColour, I need to give PRIM_POINT_LIGHT the value llsRGB2Linear(vColour) to get the colours of the emitter and the light to match. How does this work with PRIM_GLTF_EMISSIVE and the value for emissive_tint in [ string texture, vector repeats, vector offsets, float rotation_in_radians, vector emissive_tint ]? No transformation of emissive_tint seems to give me a value for vColour that matches the two. Do I have to do it manually, or am I doing something wrong? Or maybe it's my colour vision that's at fault.

As I understand it, currently you get logged in at a safe hub matching the highest maturity level you have set in your preferences.

And. if you're worried about inadvertently teleporting to an Adult region, keep your preferences for "Show Me Content" set to the default G and M. Then, if you try to TP to an Adult area, a warning will pop up telling you you need to reset your preferences and try again. At that point you can, if you wish, switch to another body (one of library ones, like the zombie or werewolf, maybe), adjust your preferences, and try again.

If they've been permabanned, then they're probably not reading this thread, of course. However ... Does anyone here have any reason to believe they were ever successfully AR-ed for something? If so, what happened as a result?

What do you mean? Why do you expect either Governance or the recipients of such letters to publish them? Years ago, before Adult was invented as a category, a friend of mine who ran a club on the Mainland had a visit from one of the Governance team (Plato Linden, I think his name was) who advised her to remove some of her signage that was visible from the G-rated region (or whatever the term was back then) next door or it would be returned, and warned her that she risked being suspended if there were further complaints. And once, again years ago, I was briefly suspended after I'd received rather a lot of L$ that turned out to have been the proceeds of fraud. I contacted Governance, as requested, to explain the situation, and got my account (though not the L$) back the next day, along with a warning about being more careful about whom I bought L$ from (back then residents were allowed to buy and sell L$ directly rather than through the Lindex). I don't know if that helps.

Experience teleports can't, as far as I know, over-ride your preferred maturity settings, so if you keep your preferences set to G and M unless you particularly want to visit Adult land, the teleport will fail and you'll see a message saying that the maturity rating of your destination exceeds that set in your preferences. Experiences can run only by the permission of the landowner, and you have to be a premium member to own and write scripts for an experience, or to have been authorised by the experience owner to compile scripts set to that experience, so they're not readily usable as a casual griefing tool.

That seems to me a rather odd way to put it. I mean obviously, besides considering the offence itself, Governance are going to look at their records to see if this is a first offence or if someone's a serial offender when deciding on a penalty. To quote the FAQ yet again That is, the policy is, unless the behaviour is completely egregious, the default assumption is that it's caused by ignorance of the rules rather than a conscious decision to go against the ToS. It's maybe worth remembering this, too: That is, they don't take any action without first assuring themselves it's justified.

Da FAQ

However, you can manually eject and permaban trespassers the moment you realise they are on your parcel. It wouldn't be difficult to script a scanner to alter you as soon as it detects an intruder, and offer you some menu options to deal with them. The Belli covenant applies only to automated systems.

The FAQ says otherwise

For what it's worth, I find dragging the original out of sight, up in the air or off to the side, and then returning it to its position by selecting it in the editor and hitting CTRL-Z works. Copying the position and rotation of the original and pasting those in the editor both to position the temporary item and then reposition the original works, too.

Certainly, but I think the question of whether the avatar she creates in SL is allowed to be in certain areas is a rather different question. First, it's up to the region/parcel owner who they allow into their region/club/parcel/whatever, and if they decide they want to exclude her avatar because of the way the avatar looks, that's their decision. Second, it's up to LL's Governance team to deal with any abuse reports as they see fit. They say in the FAQ that so presumably, if there's any doubt about whether or not the avatar represents a child but they think it likely does, they'll advise the resident first before imposing any particular sanctions. They'll also, they say, consider the circumstances surrounding the AR -- what conversations the avatar was having, and with whom, and I'd imagine they'd look at the avatar's profile and groups too. If the woman keeps on finding her avatars get booted from adult venues, and particularly if she keeps on finding herself the subject of successful ARs, she'd be well-advised to choose a different avatar with which to visit those areas rather than keep trying to find out what the boundaries are with particular edge cases.

I don't see it myself. The older sisters of the av pictured in Katherine's post, maybe, or that avatar some years later.

If people are engaging in sexual activity in public on M land, whether it's the Blake Sea or anywhere else, that's clearly against the ToS and Adult Content policy, so I'd suggest you AR them.

Presumably the owner would be advised to consider moving to a region more readily accessible for their customer base. Either that or people will need to change to another avatar when they go shopping.

If you contrast the example you gave -- you sitting on a regular beach on the Blake Sea enjoying the sunset and some naked adult avatars passing by on their boat (I wonder how often this happens) vs you sitting on a "Family friendly" nude beach -- then I think the meaning of "the context of a location" is clear.

My reading of the ToS is that, so long as you're fully clothed and they're just skinny dipping, there's no infraction on either side.

Your example was I would say that the FAQ I quoted make it clear that the answer to your question is that neither the child av nor the people on the yacht would, in the example you give, be in violation of the ToS. Do you not agree?

The FAQ (am I the only person who has read them?) address this very point:

Though region owners who don't, for whatever reason, want child avatars (or anyone else) on their region didn't need to wait until now to ban them, so I wonder what's changed?

I'm not so sure. Nudity is permitted on M land, and I think it's legitimate for LL to want to keep naked child avatars off nude beaches, and certainly not to want to have them photographed near naked adult avatars. I'm not saying this is the best way to achieve that goal, but I think that's the reason for all this stuff about skins and modesty panels.

Under the new policy, child avatars are now restricted to M and G rated areas. That's new. They are allowed -- and the FAQ make this explicit -- allowed on M regions where there is adult furniture etc, so long as they don't actual engage in sexual activity, which they weren't allowed to before the changes, either.

Like this, do you mean? Linden Lab Official:Clarification of policy disallowing *****