Arielle Popstar

It will probably make younger looking avatars view virtual adults approaching them with more distrust. Any approach could be a Linden in disguise or a child hater looking to find a way to get the goods on someone playing too close to the line.

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.

My avatar has evolved over the years and has branched into other looks. To have only used what I initially set up with, would have bored me sooner or later and abandoned it or left it dormant for long periods to play other games. To have made an alt to try those different branches would have been too expensive and would not have been conducive to the small changes that amounted to the significant ones that did happen over time.

I'd rename it to Child haters anonymous because some could really use a program!

I saw that and will look forward to hearing it verified. As an aside, isn't that something that should have been happening all along?

For me it is a lack of faith based on reports of accounts being banned without being able to defend themself or warning. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. There is no reason for me to think this would not apply to Governance based on their past reputation.

Quite a few will I think. I get people mentioning they cammed under my dress or skirt so I suspect with this required modesty layer, even more will.

No, but they are included in the Child policy changes.

Ok Katherine, I realize you're not listening but i'll point out that for some to change their look is tantamount to you changing the medium of your artwork. Probably not something you'd like to do but do expect that others can change their artwork(looks) because someone says so.

Because they were allowed to be up to now and others of their kind were meeting there. That is those who are considered as late teen and early 20's

That's not totally correct from different reports where child avatars were fully clothed, not indulging in adult behavior but only stood too close to an adult sofa, looking too young in a Adult club according to a reporter etc. One does not have to be naked or indulging in adult behaviour to get banned.

From the heightened awareness of child avi's, I feel it is going to get worse with false AR's so I stepped out of SL during the witch hunting. But then I don't run any inworld business so it was easy to do.

Or that you haven't paid enough attention to them or put out so they AR because we could be seen as under 18. Not safe anymore.

A store that sells both Adult and items rated general or moderate would require a store in each to be able to serve both adult content and give access to those who are no longer able to access Adult regions

Those are removable so not fit to comply with the new rules.

I haven't seen that distinction Ceka. A child avatar for the purpose of the ToS is anything under the age of 18.

No they can't because if they are BOM, they can be removed which is against the new rules

And if that's the only way you can determine the age of the avatar, you have proved my point.

No, you don't. There have been pictures of avatars in these threads with different people guessing the ages anywhere between 15-25. Maybe you recognize an 8 year old but when it gets to the teens, it becomes much harder to accurately and consistently determine which is under 18.

Yes I've seen the same. The child haters like to blame those appearing younger while ignoring the significant demand for younger avatars from those presenting as being older. I wouldn't term it as "abuse" per se as they do go there voluntarily but recognize too that many go there to meet likeminded, not to find someone to pick them up.

I think the idea is that the modesty part is part of the skin, not separate from it. We're calling it a layer but from what the lab is saying, they want it as part of the skin.

I do see what I think they are trying to get at with the modesty layer. In some ways it can be seen as a protection for younger avatars in that the child haters 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. This thread as well as some other stories show what lengths some will go to, to implicate younger presenting avatars in compromised situations. These new policies will just redouble efforts by the moral minorities to ban young avatars from this virtual barbie game.

Well it is and it isn't because from what I read one time in their forums was that Imvu reimbursed but took the funds out of the Creators account who made and sold it. The credits were nice but I hated to think how it must have impoverished the creator to pay that all back.

In those cases it was replaced with better content, not regressed.

I've been reimbursed in Imvu a few times for content I purchased that was later revoked for use on the platform there.