HarrisonMcKenzie

This is now the 3rd time I will have explained this. If I apply an alpha so I can wear a a pair of shorts or pant, I am making my underwear zone transparent. That is now a violation of the ToS. Full stop. I work in policy enforcement. This is the first counter that will be made to this policy. I know that this isn't what LL means. But it is what LL wrote, and that's a problem. What minors are you protecting? There are no minors here. There are no real life children in SL, unless they are violating the age limits established in the ToS. This isn't about protecting minors. It never was. It's about LL protecting its public image by doing nothing of substance, and it's about all the Helen Lovejoy's out there screaming in hysteria "won't someone PLEASE think of the children." This is a platform for adults, with characters controlled by adults. If LL wanted to protect minors from bad influences, they'd close the last stretch of the age limit of users to 18. I love every part of this answer, because it calls this whole situation out for what it is. It's gatekeeping and bigotry against the way people choose to present themselves. At best, this is about appeasing people who want to poo poo on people who don't play SL the way they do. At worst, it's outright discrimination. Many thanks for pointing this out directly. Oh my friend, there is a huge difference between equality and equity. If you aren't playing a child avatar, this doesn't affect you in the slightest. This change only affects people who play child avatars, who now have more and more rules that apply to them but not other users. Just because we follow the same rules doesn't mean those rules affect you the same way. Google "equality equity liberation" and take a good look at the various pictures of black kids trying to watch a baseball game. Equality does nothing to address the problem. And please don't say "then don't play a child avatar," as for some people who do, that's like telling a trans person to stop pretending they're the sex they weren't born with, or telling a gay person to just stop being gay. There are many reasons people play child avatars. Very few of them are doing it to have pretend sex.

I would have loved to go. Couldn't because of work. Again, there's a difference between what you mean and the words you use. I know that's the spirit and intention of the rule. But as someone who works in policy enforcement and dispute resolution, that's not what's written. What is written is bad policy because they are saying that these pixels cannot be made transparent. Guess what makes those things transparent.

It's really a no win situation. They're trying to show that they are doing something. It's just that they seem to have fallen into a common trap where the something actually accomplishes nothing. Personally, I think they should have just enforced what they already had on the books, but then that doesn't have a "new thing" that can be easily pointed to.

The specific language I've seen used is that this modestly layer cannot be removable. That's suggesting that it needs to be a part of your skin rather than a layer you are choosing to wear. I would certainly hope people aren't derendering kids' clothing to check for these things, as that would be extremely problematic (reminds me of those stories of real life Japanese schools checking the colour of girls' underwear, because Japan). Rather, I would hope that any policing comes from really explicit problem behaviour and not uncomfortable paranoia.

There's a difference between what you mean and the words you use. What is meant is that child avatars are supposed to be clothed. What's actually written suggests that clothing is prohibited because you aren't allowed to make your underwear zone (which must not be covered) transparent with an alpha in order to wear other clothing What is meant is that these policies will make rules about decency more clear. What's actually written fuels a witch hunt that marginalized a certain population, which itself appears to be against the company's own policies. What's intended is these policies will keep people safe and combat the exploitation of minors. What's written is the exact opposite because it inherently sexualizes depictions of minors and treats them like sexual objects. This is actually very problematic, and that's before we get into whether this is damaging and outright discrimination. There is a lot more here than you realize if you're only reading the words at surface level.

That is what is written, but that is not what it says. That's why I wrote what I did: the writing of this policy betrays its purpose. It's bad policy writing that still doesn’t actually address the problem at hand, and bad writing that doesn't survive the smallest amount of scrutiny. This is why people have a problem with this.

Just to stir the hornet's nest a little more, there are some fun little concerns I've been meaning to point out. 1. To quote the "Clarification of policy" document, "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." As written, this means that all child avatars must be nude at all times. If the modesty layer cannot be transparent, that means you cannot alpha that part of your body out in order to wear clothing. It's really fun working in policy enforcement because I get paid to point things like this out. Clearly, that's not the intention here, but that is, in fact, what is written. Since I can't make this modesty layer transparent via an alpha, I am now required to run around in public in only my underwear. 2. I'll need to pull a direct quote but don't have time to right now, but I understand the ToS spells out than no user is to be marginalized or belittled. I look forward to that not being followed, since it already is not being followed. Those who play child avatars are being marginalized and have been belittled long before this change came into effect. Is LL violating its own ToS? 3. What people don't seem to realize is that this whole discussion (the whole topic, not this thread) sexualizes kids and calls on people to look at child avatars as if they are a sexualized commodity. It promotes the transactionalization of sex, which itself promotes sexual and gender based violence. This whole thing is very weird and a little icky, since this change is forcing people to look at kids as objects of sex. Once again, this is clearly not the intention, as usual, this is having the exact opposite effect because that's what happens when you hastily write bad policies. The first test of any new policy is the first conflict that arises because of it. We are seeing that right now. As written, this change simply doesn't work and is going to need amendment.

Sorry, but you're wrong. That's not how this works. That's not how reality works. If LL wanted to make that the rule, they would have done so. No body has a baked in age, nor is there any agreement you have to sign that polices this. You don't get to decide what body people are allowed to use, nor do you get to decide how they use it. If they are doing inappropriate things, that's already covered in the TOS and had nothing to do with the body they are wearing, nor your virtue signaling.

I actually prefer unrigged shoes. Aside from liking to wear socks (and rigged shoes not playing nicely with that), I play a kid avatar and no one makes shoes for kids anymore who aren't babies. There are a few bodies that kind of seem to fit, but it's always risky buying shoes since you can never guarantee they'll be usable. I also prefer adult styles of shoes that little little kid ones, as there's more variety and better construction.

I've never been a fan, probably because all the ones I've seen look really outdated and clunky. It also adds to lag and avatar complexity, so I try not to make a habit of it.

Adding to this, gacha is a reference to gachapon, which are Japanese coin op machines that give out little trinkets. A lot of cool stuff got made as gachas because people would make more money selling them for a limited time than as a standing product, but a lot were also really lazy. As since it was meant to be unique, they were no-copy (what that message was referring to). The whole thing also blew up I think last year because it was basically gambling (same issue as loot boxes in games), so there's a new system someone made that's more transparent.

The challenge is that any change like this can break user content. Granted, that content might be worth breaking (thinking about really old scripting), but that does seem to be a concern LL heeds. Plus we're all cranky old people who don't like change. I absolutely agree that some housekeeping could make SL a lot more accessible for new players though.

Only. No. I want all of SL to conform to human proportions so that everyone can enjoy being in-world. This idea that everyone who is under 6 feet is a child and has no place in SL is fairly problematic and just turns into another form of discrimination. Given that a large population in SL is disabled, ethnically diverse, has significant mental health or identity concerns, or is otherwise a minority, it's odd that we keep doing things that make people feel unwelcome.

Starting in SL is an absolutely horrible experience. You have to come in knowing what all of the different avatar types are so you can simply use anything, have to know how to layer parts in a way that makes no sense, and have to learn controls that do not align with normal game and software conventions. Thankfully, the feature known as Bake on Mesh makes this markedly easier since you no longer need special skins and huds to make an avatar work. But it's still absolutely horrible and extremely off-putting for new players. But there really isn't a way to fix the problem without breaking a ton of content, since everything in SL is user made.

As a child avatar (I play a preteen), I HAAAAAAAAAAAAATE what I call SL Scale. Buildings with 14 foot ceilings, door handles so high that I can't reach them, chairs that I need a ladder to get into, props and other items being 2-3 times their real size, and adults being 10'3". In SL, I'm about as tall as one of my dad's legs, and I'm still quite tall for the age. In RL, my brother's 9 year old is approaching my average adult height. I find it beyond frustrating that everything in SL is built for people who are the size of giants. But LL won't do anything about it because it can't. Everything in world is user made. All we can do is call on builders to stop doing this, call on residents to dial back their avatars, and call on sim builders of realistic sims to make them to proper proportions. I'll never be able to afford it because land is overpriced, but I would love to build a modern day neighbourhood that is scaled for real humans. Buildings with 8 foot ceilings. Props and furniture that people can actually use. Stuff like that.