Jump to content

Leslie Trihey

Resident
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    42

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Leslie Trihey

    So what changed in the Terms of Service?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted · Edited by Leslie Trihey

    5 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

    I wonder sometimes, without being able to articulate it, who actually "likes" kemono avatars besides kemono users?

    I just don't get it, and I do like "good" anime avatars (not related to "age").

    Plenty of people I imagine. I certainly got no complaints when I used to use one back in like... oh boy I'd say 2017? It's been awhile since I've even seen one in the wild. Kemonos kind of old fashioned these days.

    So what changed in the Terms of Service?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    17 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

    Bullshj*te.

    It's because we associate Huge heads, with huge eyes, and tiny mouths on flat chested narrow hipped bodies 4 and a half feet tall with "looks like a damn child".

    Anime faces DELIBERATELY look child like.

    Many Anime/Manga characters in the Non SL "art" are basically a child's head on an adult body. That is the "Culture" of Anime.

    When you stick a child like head on a child like body, it's a child like avatar, and gets asked to change or leave or get punt kicked.

    No exceptions

    It's got sod all to do with "cute" and everything to do with "look like a damn child".

     

    Thanks for proving some of the concerns valid. Lol. The kemono avatar is not a child avatar, nor can be really used as one. Unless you consider a shortie with a giant ass and child bearing hips as a kid

    • Confused 1

    So what changed in the Terms of Service?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    3 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

    Wrong, I actually read all of your clear-as-day garbage-posts.

    I just don't care because your main concerns are blatantly inane, or defending the "poor little darlings" that as a sim admin I've learned the hard way are NOTHING BUT TROUBLE.

     

    One of your "concerns" was that utter tripe about females under 7 ft tall having to live in fear of being constantly abuse reported for being children.

     

    I've spent more than 8 years being well under 7 ft, and NEVER had a problem with that. EVER. Nor has anyone I have known in the last 8 years. EVER.

     

    Good for you lol. Oh by the way you don't have to spin tall tails about "walking tos-violations assaulting your land" or whatever. Land owners have always had the right to ban anyone, for any reason. So you can cut out the malarkey.

    So what changed in the Terms of Service?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    3 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

    NO IT DOESN'T.

    It punishes the over-entitled pint sized anti-adult-activities walking ToS violations who used to attack adult parcels., and others who look just like them.

     

    This is just stage one, today they punish the walking ToS violations, but we're still waiting for the OTHERR shoe to drop.

    The one where they impose some draconian checks on those of us who are not part of the walking ToS Violation community, EVERYONE ELSE..

     

    We're all going to get slammed for the "non-rights" of a noisy over-entitled minority who should NEVER have been allowed oon A Rated land in the first place.

     

    As somebody who has been an admin on A rated land, I STOPPED caring about the butthurt of Walking ToS Violation avatars years ago, when I realised just how many of them were willing to spend as long as you could stomach them prattling, trying to defend theirr fraudulent claims that the parcel owners rules and LL ToS somehow magically didn't apply to their over entitled little butts, because "My Little Paedo-Bait - 10 Year old Japanese Comic Book streetwalkers  are MAGIC!".

     

    Now, for whatever time is left before LL drop the anti-adult "other shoe", A rated admins can relax, as they no longer have to listen to an hour of pathetic laughable excuses for breaking the ToS, and can instead simply go straight to "Abuse Report, Ban, and Puntkick home"

     

    Bliss!

     

    And for the record, I've spent more than 8 years  in SL being 1) less than 7 ft tall ( my avi is 5'7" in flat feet, 6'1" in 6 " heels, so the same height as my FirstLife avi ), 2) not a "Kupra Karen", and NEVER been accused of having a child avatar, so no, the whining pro Walking ToS violation members of the Campaign for Real Height, who constantly kvetch about female avatars over 5'4" being "giants, are not "in danger".

     

     

    I don't care about adult Sims, nudity or anything else your kvetching about in regards to child avatars. I laid out my concerns clear as day and yall skim past them. Lmao.

    • Like 1

    So what changed in the Terms of Service?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, Vivienne Schell said:

    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.

    Case in point of someone not reading concerns and just wanting to hurl out accusations.

    • Like 2

    So what changed in the Terms of Service?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted · Edited by Leslie Trihey

    12 minutes ago, Yorkie Bardeen said:

    And almost any door lock can be defeated with a cheap pick set off Amazon and/or a plastic milk jug, so why bother doing anything at all? Just make it as easy as possible for predatory criminals to indulge their abhorrent behaviours.

    Alternatively, you can put as many practical obstacles in their way that potentially some of them will trip up and get a lifetime ban or better yet, prosecution in relevant jurisdictions. Saying you can't stop criminals committing crimes 100% of the time is not an argument.

    Punishing a group of people for something that MIGHT happen worked well in the past. (It didn't)As it's been pointed out by myself and several other people, this isn't going to effect the bad eggs at all.

    • Like 2
    • Confused 1

    So what changed in the Terms of Service?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted · Edited by Leslie Trihey

    4 minutes ago, Ingrid Ingersoll said:

    Who exactly is persecuting you? Have you been banned?

    I remember years ago when threads about ***** would roll out and people tried to silence anyone  concerned about pedophiles by mocking them with "won't someone think of the children". As if concerns over kids wellbeing were lolworthy.

    When I look back on that now years later I realize how utterly antisocial and f'ed up that was. 

     

     

     

    I'm against this simply because it's not going to effect the bad people, at all. It's nonsense that's going to destroy over a decades worth of content, communities, and eff over innocent people. While the bad people get off scott free unless they drop the ball.

    • Like 3

    So what changed in the Terms of Service?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    Just now, Vivienne Schell said:

    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.

    It's reactionary nonsense and overkill for something with an incredibly easy solution that can be done without destroying over a decades worth of content in the process.

    What's the difference between ARing someone not wearing BOM coverings and ARing someone that's bypassing the modesty layer? Literally nothing.

    • Like 4

    So what changed in the Terms of Service?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

    Why are these rules stupid? 

    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.

    2: It's gonna destroy near decades worth of avatars, costing people years of their money and lives. Lot of content creators have left SL for various reasons and a lot of things will -never- be able to be updated to be compliant. The expectation that people should be effectively forced to throw out years of money and time because they won't have a built in perma modesty layer and start from scratch is absolutely absurd to me.

    I feel that a lot of people are just going to straight up quit over this. And that's sad.

     

    3: We have no idea what this modesty layer looks like yet. I worry that it's gonna be super intrusive and ruin more then a few outfits. Hopefully this will be clarified soon ™

     

    4: This punishes everyone BUT the people that need to be punished. The bad people are still going to be bad and doing bad things. Meanwhile everyone else pays the price for it. In some cases (as in point 2) with losing years worth of money and time crafting their avatars.

    • Like 7

    So what changed in the Terms of Service?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted · Edited by Leslie Trihey

    12 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

    I think there is an assumption, based on what we've been told, that all "reports" will be validated by LL.  

    Unless you are referring to "users" banning other "users" from their regions / parcels - in that case, nobody has any say in that but those doing the banning (nothing really changed).

    So, if "adult" avatars are unjustly "banned" by LL, there will of course be a lot of negative feedback - an uproar of justifiably angry users.

    However, if "adult" avatars are "banned" by other users, then there is nothing to do about that except go somewhere else.

    Is the concern over lack of faith in LL's review process? Or, a concern that more users will ban what they THINK are child avatars? Or both?

     

     

    Both. I have very little faith in LL's review process. I also fear the return of height detectors and witch hunting. As it's already happening, in this very thread in fact. I believe around page 8 someone posted an anime avatar in a maid dress and said that this should be banned lol.

    What certain people don't realize (Ingrid) is that people are irrational creatures and have gone after adults as adults before for simply being flat chested, or wearing an anime avatar, or being petite and have some incredibly strange idea's what constitutes a youthful avatar.   This has happened before, it will (and is already happening) happen again.

    • Like 2

    So what changed in the Terms of Service?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    Just now, Ingrid Ingersoll said:

    Again, you're wishing it wasn't easy to distinguish between adults and children and that's not the case. 

    And as for someone not liking your outfit, anyone can ban me from a sim for having an ugly avi or a female avi. If you want to go somewhere you have to comply with the requirements of the sim owner. That's still the same as ever.

    No your just just misinterpreting what I'm typing (not to mention half accusing me of being a child av myself). Yes you can easily distinguish a child from an adult. However a lot of people that will be effected by this new moral panic will be adult AVs.

    • Like 2

    So what changed in the Terms of Service?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

    I agree.

    My point when I quoted someone else above was, when they say it's ok "until someone thinks you're a teenager" - being a "teenager" isn't the issue.  It's looking "underage" (under adult age) that is the issue.

     

    The problem is anyone can decide that you look "underage" and decide to ruin your day for a number of factors. From clothing, to make up, to heads, to avatar shape can effect this. I put on a goth dommy outfit and makeup one moment, then I go for kawaii aesthetic the next and all the sudden I look "underage" because of a blush layer that makes my cheeks look bigger and make up that accentuates my eyes. 

     

    People say "Oh I can spot *insert type here* a mile away", to which I say: sure if they are blatantly a child avatar. But we all know this is a can of worms.

    • Like 2
    • Sad 1

    So what changed in the Terms of Service?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted · Edited by Leslie Trihey

    10 minutes ago, Ingrid Ingersoll said:

    Children have distinct facial features and body shapes and as humans we can easily spot a juvenile. This is not new science. But there will always be people in sl who insist its aabsolutely to impossible to recognize those features in sl. For "reasons"

     

    It's all fine until someone decides that you look like a teenager. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Or decides adult anime avatars look to young. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    So what changed in the Terms of Service?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted · Edited by Leslie Trihey

    6 minutes ago, Starberry Passion said:

    Not true, I walk around in a Slim legacy perky with [+] Perky Petite add on all the time and I'm still fine.

    I even am 5'3" I wear a Lel Prim head, I dress adult and act adult and most times people don't mess with negatively.

    The only ones that ever messed with me are people who thought height mattered and they would message me calling me a child for being short, was never about how I looked. It was usually giant people who did that.

    I mean yeah, if I had a dollar for every time I've had this problem I'd probably only have a few dollars in my 17 years of SLife, but it does happen enough to concern me.

    • Like 2

    So what changed in the Terms of Service?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted · Edited by Leslie Trihey

    47 minutes ago, Ingrid Ingersoll said:

    I love how some people here insist that there's no way we can ever know if it's a child avi. Newsflash - We know what kids look like and no, it's not JUST related to height. 

    In my experience, no, a lot of people can't tell the difference. I stopped making my avatars based on eighteen-to early twenties old because despite having a rocking set of boobs and a huge dick, and a body and face based on real proportions and pictures apparently anything that looks under 30 is enough for some people to yeet you. And yes, height is a huge factor.

     

    Not to mention anime avatars, already in this thread someone said an outfit should be banned because it was on an anime avatar.

    • Like 6
×
×
  • Create New...