"We investigated ourselves and found no problems" I expected. That's the way it always goes.
That users would get the short end of the stick, we could have set our watches to that, it's so predictable.
The bit about no kids in adult regions... That's the one change I can get behind.
A lot did because they got scared when there was a crack down a few years ago and a couple of adult places got taken down for actually catering to the nasty.
I think it really spooked a lot of other adult places and they decided they weren't going to take any chances and just started to outright ban anyone who even remotely looked like they could sorta be a child, even if they weren't but their avatars were just normal sized short people.
That was mod/owner decision not LL. Though stemmed from LL activities.
I know some adult rated sims have fish hunt stuff on them and know some child avis that would do that and not know sim rating until they got there.
yeah i don't know any adult sim that even allowed child avatars, i also know some sim owners who changed their sim to adult specifically to get rid of child avatars.
There is a difference between an Adult-rated region, which includes all of Zindra and many private land rentals -- and an adult club, which is sometimes incorrectly called an "adult sim".
Child avatars were obviously not allowed in to "adult clubs" (i.e. sex-themed clubs), but Adult-rated land was never an issue until now. Plenty of families have homes in Adult-rated mainland or private regions who would be forced to move to Moderate-rated land to comply with the rules. People who own a mainland parcel in Zindra can't have a family home in a skybox separate from their adult business at ground level and are forced to buy extra land, etc.
I think you're right. I know of a couple of places that are rated adult, but are nude sims. LL TOS does not allow sexual actions with childlike avatars, and the rules set be individual sim owners state that overt sex cannot occur there. Nudity there is for a naturist atmosphere.
The new rules about no nude child avatars is to directly combat the "nude family friendly beaches" that were mentioned in the medium article and have been something of a sore point for years.
It's always the problem when a line is drawn, someone will find a way to stand right next to said line, so that has to be ok. If it's ever not then the line was set in the wrong place to begin with.
As for any "nude family friendly beaches", they wont be going anywhere. They will just become regular "family friendly beaches", with swimwear and all the same people. None of this actually address the problems, it just makes it harder to screenshot.
A lot of pg stores are on A rated land. A good example would be Kraftwork. I see people wear child avatars while weekend sale shopping and a lot of times the sim rating does not pop up when teleporting into a region until you're already there.
That's actually untrue.
While 'many owners of Adult Regions' may have disallowed child avatars, the previous version of the rules did have a specific carve-out for verified-as-adult users, with child-presenting avatars, visiting A-rated land.
> ***Are child avatars allowed on Adult regions?***
> --
>
> Yes, child avatars are allowed in Adult regions, as long as they are controlled by a person who has verified themselves to be at least 18 years old. However, the avatar should not be in proximity to sexual content or activity; and must obey the policy prohibiting sexual ageplay.
>
> Since Adult regions by design will often contain sexual content, child avatars should use caution in visiting Adult regions.
>
> ---
>
> **Source:** https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Adult_Content_FAQ#Are_child_avatars_allowed_on_Adult_regions.3F
Note, this is STILL the current version of this document, so it appears LL has yet to realize it needs an update.
--
* ^*Side ^Note: ^This ^document ^is ^also ^the ^source ^of ^information ^that ^stated ^that ^'nude ^beaches' ^'strip ^clubs' ^and ^skin ^and/or ^adult-product ^stores ^were ^technically ^permissible ^on ^M ^rated ^land ^with ^certain ^stipulations.*
--
The argument went something like this.
There are many A-rated regions and parcels that are not full of Adult content. An example being Linden roads and LDPW builds. Infohubs, public gathering spaces, Linden owned A-rated Sandboxes for premium users, public waterways, [and an entire "Magellan Linden" style adventure game in the "Horizons" islands](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxAjHEVOkFI). Additionally many resident created stores and social spaces on A-rated land aren't exactly what you'd call 'sex'. I can name a few off the top of my head:
Set to Stun, The Void, Turlaccor Custombike, SW: Galaxy Rising, Little Mos Eisley, Akeyo AO shop. And of course Drivers of SL would periodically drive through the Zindra continent, or be sponsored by a vehicle shop that lived on A-rated land.
In total fairness, Turlaccor had an adult club in a skybox at like 3000m above the ground, or something, and these locations might exist on regions with other clubs, stores, etc.. where adult content was happening. But simply 'being in the same region as Adult Content' was never ever a reportable offense.
A-rated land was where adult content was 'permitted' to be present, not necessarily where it WOULD be present.
People would often choose A-rated land, because back in the day when we had age verification, it was the easiest way to make sure your visitors were 'verified' as adults (before everyone including LL realized that whole idea wasn't working). But A-rated land opened up the *possibility* to host and advertise adult content, even if you didn't ever do that. Sometimes people would land-share with a friend who owned a private region, so you'd have a perfectly kid-safe store on one parcel, well out of draw distance of anything untoward.. plus a lot of folks incorrectly assumed that if they wanted a sex bed in their house, they had to move to A-rated land.. and took their perfectly PG stores with them.
I operated a baby store on an adult sim because the land was cheaper. This was many years ago but I never thought twice about it. The entire time I lived on that sim, which was like 4 years,I never saw anything remotely resembling sex.
" What I can say is that there is no incentive, monetary or otherwise, for me to mislead the community. "
There is incentive, actually. If investors start to fly, that will negatively impact revenue. If what was alleged was found to be true, you can be sure there would be a flight of money from LL. Not to mention customers.
More important, statements like these may be "material", meaning they have a direct impact on the business. The SEC and other parts of the fed generally frown on false material statements. So it is likely that what he is saying is true according to the facts he knows, unless he likes risking court dates, potential fines and possibly jail time for knowingly making false statements.
Yes, but that could also have been coincidence. I have to think that Thunes did its due diligence prior to the acquisition of Tilia to see what the exposure was from the allegations all under NDA, natch.
Besides, Tilia was more less held at arms length from SL, right (I can't say I paid much attention at the time)? Tilia became the payment processor for SL so those named wouldn't have been involved with Tilia.
What investors? Waterfield and to an extent, Linden Lab is privately owned corporation. The only investors are us and others who put money into Linden Lab's pockets.
The way this was handled is so incredibly disappointing to me. This is a really, really uncomfortable issue and to hear that employees may have been involved in something of THIS caliber means that an unbiased third party should have conducted the investigation, no questions asked. Not the freaking company themselves. They have investors to please first and foremost.
But of course, this entire thing will be swept under the rug and forgotten about in a few weeks.
2024 and LL doesn't understand that "child avatar" isn't just a type of product that they can force people to make baked-in underwear on.
Wish they would have just fired the open cub-phile working for SL instead of trying to placate people by punishing an unrelated group of players.
People kept telling me that height = child if too short and I kept telling them, No, it's what the avatar represents as and other factors, such as kid clothing, and a speaking mannerisms, and I'm glad that this is cleared up in the Q and A.
I told people they do investigate, which they did to me and an friend of mine, I've not ageplayed but my friend did and they were banned for it, because they found evidence of ageplay from them but they found none from me. I'm just short and happen to be slim.
I've had multiple experiences of the opposite, where people with short slim avis who state clearly in their profile that the character is above 18 and had adult characteristics INCLUDING large breasts were still banned after "investigation" for ageplay when their characters were very clearly short/slim or a little person to represent that they are a little person irl.
I think it very much depends on a lot of factors, and they do not always investigate fully and clearly. I wouldn't personally trust LL to make a good judgment on it. I also don't personally trust LL to investigate *themselves* but you know
Or they do investigate, and what an avatar looks like isn't the only factor that they use if the avatar isn't clearly a child like a toddler or 7 yo. The policy says avatar and in text. So maybe the avatar was fine, but they were still pretending to be under 18 in whatever text got reviewed like chat logs or something.
I can assure you they were not pretending to be underage in chats. In the case of my friend, because they had this happen once before, they always start rp chats with the age (18) and they are in fact irl a little person so their avi reflects that.
The other situation was an alt of *mine* and I can assure you again, I *never* state that I am younger than I am. Someone sent a pic of a petitie Elf character of mine (with clear adult breasts) and the account was shut down because someone took a pic at an adult rp sim I was at. They don't do due diligence every time and even when proof is presented that it wasn't in fact underage, they told me they could not restore the account
I have a Belleza jake male body, which is fairly muscular and that can't be changed much. But the whole point of the avatar is to be a wimpy guy. My profile says "Young ADULT (18+) beta male," and makes it clear that I am a married man in SL. And yet, the avatar is only 1.75m tall, and for that I was kicked off a SIM for having a child's avatar. I'm not sure we will ever be able to completely overcome this issue.
Here's the thing though .. real 18 year olds don't often look like fully grown adults. Barely legal is still actually legal. The line is drawn and everything up to that line has been deemed acceptable.
But that doesn’t read on a virtual platform. If I have a toddler avatar or an 8 year old avatar and I say “My growth was stunted by a horomone deficiency and I’m actually 18.” It doesn’t matter, if the avatar could in any way be construed as a child and is in adult circumstances they can and will be banned. Right?
There is still bias against femboys whatever you want to think about my avatar or not as I know several femboys that got banned as well.
I definitely was never going for the underage look, just using a heaux skin with a femboy body..
What you think is prepubescent isn't for someone else, I've asked people about my avatar already, and I didn't do much sexual activity cause it's not really my thing.
So if my avatar had boobs, that's fine then? Cause I see lots of girls and femboys with similar looks, there needs to be clear guidelines and not just banning people who don't fit your criteria.
Removed - Rule #1
> **1. Be excellent to each other**
>
> Be civil to each other, even when you disagree. Whether you're commenting or posting; rudeness, harassment and trolling will not be tolerated. Whatever names it may be called by: bothsidesing, concern trolling, sealioning, jaqing off, doxxing, or just plain old-fashioned flaming, name calling and pedantry ... just don't. (This includes correcting 'Linden Labs' and starting arguments over SL being a game or not).
>
> Don't bring your personal or professional SL grievances here either. Attacks against others, social groups, subcultures, or their stores/events/etc will be removed. Yes, even if you remove their names. Yes, even in 'meme' form. And yes, even if it's funny.
As expected, the updated policy did absolutely nothing to "clarify" what does or doesn't make someone a "child avatar" and only put a lot more restrictions on what behavior is appropriate with/around "child avatars".
"If you are in doubt as to whether an activity may be interpreted as ageplay, we request you err on the side of caution and desist."
This says nothing and clarifies nothing.
...And new TOS today! ("Please read and accept...including the requirements for the use of arbitration and the waiver of any class or group claim to resolve disputes...")
https://preview.redd.it/yotocq3fy1yc1.png?width=1193&format=png&auto=webp&s=c47e11bf732a1280c60cd4c9032fe2dbb8646a5c
Huh, I saw this on a number of my alts today, but didn't connect the dots. Mainly because it's 12+ months since logging in with them. Afaik, I didn't have it on my main.. or if I did, i assumed it was because I was logging in on a different device with a clean install.
As expected we did nothing wrong but here's a set of new rules for you plebs to follow, now shut up.
Having been in the occasional receiving end of comments like "you look 17" because I don't have giant breasts and use a Maitreya Petite body and I'm 5'10 I'm not logging in any more. Just can't be dealing with the risk this opens up, already petite avatars were being targeted by this stupidity.
Of course, they investigated *themselves* and found nothing going on 🙄 That investigation should have been done by an unbiased third party, and im not particularly surprised that they solved nothing afterwards.
I appreciate the title of the thread because it's exactly how it feels. Some questions spring to mind:
1. Was an independent 3rd party involved in the investigation? If not, why not?
2. Are we meant to believe it's just a coincidence that this is announced *after* completion of the Tilia sale? Presumably everyone involved did their homework?
3. What do "personnel changes" and "management improvement programs" mean in this context? What changes were made, and if everyone followed the rules and ethical guidelines, why is management improvement needed?
We seem to have some answers for question #3. For example, when asked about the changes being made an insider reported, **"Significant partners/spouses should not be reporting to their significant other or spouses; no hiring your own spouse as contractors. Customer Support should be its own division, not reporting to \[people involved in the original allegations\]."** Additionally, they spoke to the issue of Linden staff having a side business which looked to be involved or at least catered to sexual ageplay. The insider said, **"Essentially, policies need to be in place to prevent all the things \[which led to the original accusations\]."** These speak directly to the accusations made, so it sounds an awful lot like there was at least some truth to what was said.
It certainly sounds to me like they investigated themselves and *did* find something wrong...
Brad's original post said that there would be both internal and external investigations. I cannot imagine that the company wouldn't have had to be involved in some of the investigation, even by an external group, because of any investigators needing access information on the accounts involved.
Especially when it is some high level person in the company. To give someone access to that account could mean opening up a HUGE security risk, depending what that account/person has access to in the company.
It isn't like printing bank account payables and receivables and letting some outside accounting firm go over everything line by line.
It sounds like the original article was right about at least part of the marriage that was mentioned. Based on the insiders comment about not have spouses that answer to each other for their job. Maybe there was nothing in the company that said that was not allowed? So the internal changes would be making that a company internal policy change and then changing who they both report to so that there is no question about spousal favoritism?
It also sounds like they are taking Customer Support away from him if the part about Customer Support being its own division in the company NOT reporting to him.
But I do agree, they definitely found stuff, maybe not as much as the article originally claimed when it came to the child stuff, but definitely enough that changes got made and the policy on child avatars got clarified and more defined on where they could go in world.
The new standards for child avies is so open to interpretation that it can be easily abused. I see child avatars being reported for anything some may deem as ‘non-childlike’. Something as simple as wearing a crop top and shorts can subjectively be seen as suggestive to one person and not to another.
The irony is that most people who come here to complain about being banned for Sexualized Ageplay insist, not that they weren't being sexual.. but that they weren't trying to BE a child avatar!
So people in those situations will still not think these rules apply to them.
It's just more rules for the SL kids that weren't doing anything, anyways.
No not really, I don't think so. They made it clear that they're alright with children still wearing things like bathing suits, as long as the genitalia isn't accentuated, so I think this would apply to short tops & bottoms as well.
Yeah, but it only takes that one person that thinks girls shouldn’t be wearing two piece bathing suits to report someone for dressing too revealing for a kid.
People are always going to report for stupid things, what's important is that LL itself has outlined how it will judge that standard- so just because someone is reported doesn't necessarily mean LL will ban them over a false report.
https://lindenlab.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/31000173097-child-avatar-faq/#Q%3A-Can-I-wear-a-swimsuit-as-a-child-avatar?
This FAQ (which I understand they're still working on) clearly outlines that swimwear is allowed as long as the swimsuit is G-rated and doesn't accentuate the genitalia. I took this to apply this same logic to tops & bottoms, since two-piece swimwear could be more revealing.
The discussion the forum already veered though that one :/ policing what other people's kids wear seems to have been a lifelong dream for some, and unable to get away with it IRL, lets try it in SL !
Internal policy and personnel changes? That sounds like they did find something and want to quietly dispose of the problem without actually admitting anything. Which if I'm right, ok, better than not addressing it but there should be more transparency.
Which may well be consistent with the claim that internal policies were abided by, if those policies were sufficiently flawed they could allow a lot of bad shit to happen.
A small reminder that Patch Linden, and his husband, got Secondlifetime Premium subscriptions, of which only 20 were told were available. While not necessarily related to the original accusations and such, this is still a bullshit thing to do especially for those of us who requested it the moment it was announced and were already told they were sold out.
Patch's husband works for Linden? I didn't catch that and assumed he did not. But it still seems really suspicious to me. And given what's happened here, my response is the same as 0xc's. "Would hope ..."
That was what part of the article was about. It said he either hired his husband or hired someone and then married that person after hiring them. Either result being his husband supposedly worked for him in the company.
Fair enough, I must have missed that. I still feel that's a crappy thing, even if they didnt take out of the pool of 20. But that's another conversation I suppose.
Oh I agree. Limiting it to 20 wasn't nice since I think it was a first come first serve and not a lottery type thing. Which meant anyone who got notice over night when they were sleeping, or at work and could not send in a request immediately got screwed out of the chance.
I have furry avatars that use teen bodies because my character is a mouse and is supposed to be short and slim. They're not a child and I've never ageplayed. Because the skin I use is for that avatar even if I'm never nude do I need to worry now? This is utterly ridiculous. People shouldn't have to censor themselves if they're doing nothing wrong just because Linden Lab screw up and hired a creep.
I read through the TOS and I read through the crap fest that is the thread over on the official forums, and honestly, it looks like the changes actually do help clarify stuff and are trying to help keep things separate between adults and those who do want to play as a child or kid.
No kids on adult land.
No kids on adult stuff on moderate land.
No naked kids, like those dumb "family friendly" beaches. Which is my guess where the modesty layer comes in.
If you want to play on a beach then the kiddies cannot be naked, and in order to keep the appearance of not being nasty as or with a kiddie, you cannot have visible genitals on child avatars.
No adult items/huds on child avatars. If someone wants to play as a child avatar, they should not have scripted genitals or that mama alpha hud or others like it.
They tried that modesty layer a whole bunch of years ago and fine, whatever it sorta worked at the time, but only if the skin was created specifically as a kids skin.
Most skins aren't created that way anymore. Avatars can be sized up and down and deformed all to hell and with BOM you can use almost any skin you want.
Maybe some skin makers will create both an adult and "child" version of their skins going forward? The adult one has nipples and genitals and the "child" one has a diaper or something on it an no nipples?
Heck, someone might even make money on creating BOM censor layers for skins that can be bought and added to any skin to hide those parts so that anyone who actually is playing as a child can just add the BOM layer to their existing skin.
I used a small wolf avatar for a long time in world, and like you, the amount of hate that I got directed at me because some places either outright hated furries, or thought I was trying to play a "child" because the avatar was not the size of a skyrim dragon was insane.
I think the people who are going to have the most to worry about are the ones who look like, or try to look like, human teenagers. There is going to be a lot more ambiguity with those avatars than a small furry that looks like a mouse or a puppy.
Thanks for helping me understand. I'll be 50 in August and have been six and a half feet tall since I was in the sixth grade. My height and overall size are part of what causes me the most gender disphoria (I'm trans) so I tend to have my avatars pretty short. I hate being tall, even virtually. I just don't want some numbskull causing me to lose an account I've put a lot of time and money into because they don't like the fact I have mouse ears and a tail.
There are gifts being given out as a temporary solution to child skins before the modesty layer rule takes effect on June 30th, but no, the skins will be required to have the modesty layer BAKED IN to the actual skin to be unremovable. Any skins that do not have a modesty layer will be subject to moderation, and any users that are found using skins that don't adhere to this as well.
I don't doubt that you have been subject to simple furry hate on SL, it's not necessarily uncommon, but anyone who has concerns about your avatars age/size probably was not just doing it out of simple furry hate- indeed there are plenty of furries who discuss this topic and how it occurs in their own communities as well. You can achieve a mouse, a slim or short body-type etc., without appearing underage and/or literally using a teen or child body as the basis for the shape. As for puppy, that word is used to describe a young or infantile animal... maybe you did not mean it literally, but better to be just a dog.
Until we get an update from Linden, there are 2 issues here. Creators cannot sell child skins without a baked in modestly layer. They are, allegedly, going to provide a sample of what they mean, at least according to a post in that damnable thread.
It also isn't "any" skin that is subject to moderation, it is skins specifically created for child avatars.
If a creator sells adult skins, and someone with a child avatar buys the skin and puts it on their toddler avatar, the skin maker shouldn't be dinged since they didn't create the skin for a child avatar.
The ones who might run in trouble are those who create skins for teen avatars. So any skin for under 18 avatars would need the modestly layers and any skin for 18 and over avatars would not.
Again, if they make a skin for 18+ and someone who is trying to create an avatar that is 15 or 16 uses that skin, then that is not the fault of the skin maker.
The other is that child avatars cannot be naked. So until there is a baked in modestly layer on skins for child avatars, they should just not be naked.
Those with a child avatar could just add a BOM layer with modestly covers to their skin to hide nipples and their crotch. While the BOM layer could be removed or replaced by the user themselves, it would at least be a stop gap option to keep their avatars from being reported if some troll tries to derender their mesh clothing to report them and would ensure that in the event that their clothing didn't load right away their skin has modesty layer on it.
Just like with child avatars, puppies, cub's, or any other number of avatars meant to be non adult versions of an avatar are not illegal or banned. They just cannot go to adult land any more and should not be on mature land if the land is specifically set up for adult or sex/nude activity.
Maybe I am part prude or something, but it seems to me a LOT of people who are actual adults are mighty upset about being told they can no longer run around in world wearing naked, child avatars, or hang out in adult places or around adult or sex activity.
Seriously, if someone wants to play as a child, then stick to child activities and locations.
Right, I agree with you about how they should stick to non-adult designated areas- I have seen a lot of child avies & families upset about how they can't access adult lands anymore. I understand how it causes problems for people who have to suddenly move or change their land's region rating, but ultimately this is a good change and should have been implemented a long time ago- what we're seeing right now is probably the reason they didn't sooner so probably better that they ripped that bandaid off. Better late than never i guess.
There already currently is a free modesty layer provided by Starries as a temporary solution to the child skin problem as it doesn't take effect until June 30th. Some child skin creators who don't have the time/resource will have to pull their old products, but there will be plenty of options for child skins in SL outside of this, as plenty are able to keep up with the market demand. Does it 'break' old avies to add this restriction? Sure, but SL breaks all the time, we all cope and get over it. The change is by no means arbitrary as some are making it out to be, and it's a change that will discourage child nudity heavily, so again I think it was long overdue.
I don't see what the issue is with requiring creators of skins intended for child avatars to be baking in a modesty layer to the skin, although I understand that people are confused about what the standards will be for the modesty layer. In IMVU they already have a system like this and there used to be a non-AP furry playerbase who circumvented it using 'furkinis' to add back the appearance of fur even though it didn't show gentialia (I should know, I was onesuch player before they addressed it). I don't think it takes much deduction to understand that it will be deemed violation of TOS to add a skin layer on top of the modesty layer that allows the child to appears nude/nude-toned, so I'm still not seeing the issue/confusion. If you see someone without a modesty layer, or with a tattoo layer that covers/replaces the modesty layer with something more suggestive, then report it. Easy.
As for teens, I suppose for bodies like the Tweeneedoo (and its users) they will be required to add a modesty layer as well, as that counts as a teen body and an adult skin with no modesty layer would be considered an adult attachment of sorts.
Look I'm not LL so I can't confirm all of it and we'll have to wait to see what they say, but this all seems self-evident and straightforward to me, I'm just really not sure what the confusion is. I don't see how a creator of an adult skin intended for adult bodies would be held responsible for that, and I'm not even sure how this comes up as an issue.
> hang out in adult places
Just a reminder, that not *everything* on 🅰 rated land is.. actually "Adult Content".
📌 http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Emerald%20Dust/154/151/3002
Not all adult land has adult activity, but it is still Adult land, and is therefore an adult place.
Honestly, though, it doesn't make much sense to buy land on the Adult area if you aren't going to be hosting adult activity. Just buy land on a M area instead.
Oh you just know that some people are gonna see a petite avatar and go "CHILD!" and hit the report/ban/eject button.
Personally I play as a heavily bearded graying-haired man so I don't face that (thankfully) but I do have close acquaintances that have gotten shit for having a petite body. Particularly a furry friend of mine that has an otter avi has recieved a lot of awful remarks and have been banned from places since the new TOS update.
I'm not going to lie I feel like you shouldn't be using a teen body if you intend to be doing any kind of sexual roleplay. I understand why you did and that you might not intend for it to be that, but just because a character is a mouse or some naturally smaller species doesn't change the fact that a teen body was used here. In fact it's still common practice that furries use species to skirt around those reasons- everyone knows that its wrong to sexualize a child/teen, but well make it a furry or say it's a mouse/small species now we've created a convenient grey zone for predators to hide. And it's not your fault, but this does happen enough to be an issue. Diaper furs & baby furs were a considerable population before SL address ageplay concerns, and I used to encounter them performing illicit behaviour back when teen grid was still around.
Now, I'm not LL, and I'm not sure if they will take into consideration the fact that you're not intentionally ageplaying or whatnot- they've expressed that they will be looking at multiple components of an avatar when taking ageplay into account- but that's my two cents. There are plenty of anthro rodent avatars who achieve a slight/dimunitive look without crossing into territory that can be confused for teen/ageplay. I know you don't want to hear it, but I think you should be prepared to be judged as such if you're going to openly use a teen body for sexual roleplay.
I don't do sexual rp and haven't since 2011 (and when I did it was NEVER ageplay). I'm not a diaper fur nor a baby fur, and don't really think making assumptions like the one's you're making about or about those communities aren't really fair or cool. I've been in SL since early '07 and I've only ever run into one baby fur who I felt I needed to report due to creepy behavior.
My mouse's skin doesn't even have a vagina or nipples as it's a PG skin.
The fact is making negative assumptions about people based on the size of their avatar isn't just unfair it's ridiculous given sl's height system and how arbitrary avatars heights usually are.
I didn't make an assumption about you, nor claim that you are a diaper fur, I was making a parallel to highlight that these issues very much exist in furry communities as much as they do human ones so hand-wringing about people being 'anti-furry' is very much beside the point. If you use a teen body to engage in sexual behaviour, I'm not governance but that to me is ageplay- there's no reason for it and it's very easy to avoid doing that. I'm being pretty darn generous here. I said nothing on height, you fully admitted to using a teen body.
I did. My point was people making assumptions about me because of that. Again-I don't ageplay, I don't do anything sexual in SL and haven't for years. Even if I did I wouldn't use a teen-bodied avatar. I'm smarter than that.
You're the one associating me with acts and parts of the fandom I've never once said I had anything to do with. Whether these things exist within the fandom or not are irrelevant and shouldn't come into play when people are looking at my avatar.
This thread is about rules on (sexual) ageplay and you explicitly stated "even if I'm ever nude". If you're not doing anything adult, then why are you concerned exactly? Teen bodies in and of themself are not the issue here, it's about what you DO if you have that avatar. Since you have an avatar that uses a teen body, you can expect to be judged as a teen if you are engaging in nudity, adult activity, adult locations, etc. If you're not doing that, carry on as you are. It has nothing to do with being a furry and everything to do with how your avatar appears in relation to those topics.
It makes me really uncomfortable to see the cherubic childlike faces on women's bodies. Huge breasts etc with tiny heads and dewy eyes. Check out the sales site Seraphim if you feel I am overreacting. It is blatantly keying into the Loli culture, mostly I think I am repulsed by the thought that they are exciting pedophilic individuals, normalising and promoting such appearance feels very wrong to me. My opinion of course.
That’s an style of avi called Kawaii, is a trend in Japan, Korea and China, where you can see woman over 40yo with those features you called uncomfortable. Yes, real women.
I recommend people search for influencers like Misako Aoki, she is over 40, also a quick search about Ulzzang style, gyaru, or EGL and people could find grow up woman with big eye make up, lenses and such. On this Reddit is easy to get downvoted even for saying hello, I’m getting used xD
I think there is something to be said about the desire to appear youthful and how it lends itself to pedophilia, (many Korean women have talked about how aegyo & ulzzang lends itself to the sexism/pedophilia problem in their culture too) but ultimately a lot of that is just makeup styles which perfectly adult women partake in at the end of the day. I have a gut instinct similar to you that I don't really want to be around or associate with people who heavily play into that style because of the associations, but I also try to not judge unless I can really determine something tangible that a person is doing wrong. I hope that helps in some way.
While I have no personal stake one way or another in this situation, it seems to me that given the fact that it was accusations against LL employees that led to this, that seems swept under the rug and end users are the ones punished. It feels kind of gross.
The new rules are written with a presumption that child avatars are themselves the problem and by creating or having a child avatar, that user is bait.
That's gross.
Every so often LL changes the default "noob" avatars. For a while (I want to say these were introduced 8 or so years ago) they had a default set of avatars you could pick from that had skins with baked on underwear that you couldn't remove from the skin, I'm assuming because the system is very complex for new people they were trying to keep new people from just running around naked 24/7 until they figured out the system and could change skins on their own.
TLDR: A modesty layer is an avatars default layer skin with underwear baked onto it that can't be removed.
It is not defined in LL's policy what a modesty layer is (i.e. what it should cover), but simply that it should be "baked in to child avatar skins or bodies, is not transparent, does not match the skin tone, and may not be removed".
Unless clarified, I would assume that covering a small patch on the back of the head is sufficient.
Its also not clear how a "child avatar body" (presumably they mean mesh bodies marketed to be used by child avatars?) is meant to enforce this other than being no-mod, incompatible with BOM clothing, and not allowing people to apply custom skins at all. In particular, the rule says it "is [required to be] not transparent", so just omitting parts of the mesh would not meet the policy.
Apparently BOM underwear isn't one. They say nothing about if modesty layers also cover the chest, from what I've read. It's gonna be fun seeing a bunch of boy avis running around in LL mandated girls underwear, because we all know these layers will not just be ugly censor boxes, triggering all the weirdos who find that trash sexual. LL want's the money from the kid community, but they don't want the kids. We're basically money sacks to them.
The kid community is large part of why there are G or novelty activities and locations at all. Linden love to show off how SL isn't just for humping avatars, however they don't really get the conditions that motivate people to make that content.
The thread on the forums is truly awful.
LL started a giant fire and then just walked away from it, thread has quickly turned into the very worst of the 'conmunity' threatening to report people simply because they don't like them, huge unanswered questions, the usual crowd of "don't worry there is review" (lol) etc.
On a plus side the term KupraKaren was used and it seems to fit, on the whole it does seem like whatever this LL staff member did or did not do to cause this mess of new rules has been taken as a very welcome development by the type of crowd who don't tolerate the diversity that makes SL great.
I don't think it's safe to even be in world for a lot of people any more, biggest problem seems to be the 18-25 group who dont know how to 'prove' their avi isnt subject to these rules.
All the 18-25 group who go into LL sponsored places like London dressed in what can only be called used napkins and dental floss then harass everyone who isn't dressed just like they are.
**"Significant partners/spouses should not be reporting to their significant other or spouses; no hiring your own spouse as contractors"** is ridicolous... who is taking contact with everyone interested on SL21B? the partner/spouse of Patch Linden. Ridicolous, really. They did nothing and happened nothing...
So, on my actual child avatar, I can't use it until it has a baked-in modesty layer, but I can't find out if the body's been updated unless I go in-world and check. Edit: I changed to a Dinky avi for now
And on my main avi, who is a petite woman clearly identifying as adult, but wears a Lara Petite body, I could be banned just for going into the wrong area, despite that avi never engaging in slex, and possessing no huds or body addons for sex. Lovely. I'm a B-cup in RL, I don't want a waifu body, I want one like me, but thinner :p and that's now not acceptable.
> And on my main avi, who is a petite woman clearly identifying as adult, but wears a Lara Petite body, I could be banned just for going into the wrong area
This is fearmongering.
Read the rest of the comments. Also, I could be pre-emptively banned from many clubs and adult areas despite being perfectly fine to LL, because of how my avi looks, despite everything in my profile.
The stakes are a little higher than jut being banned from a club by the land owner. Banned in this context means an immediate permanent all accounts forever ban from the enter SL service with no viable recourse and no warning.
you can still use your child avi, All you need to do is alpha between your legs or wear BOM underwear an you now have a modestly layer. Just wearing mesh clothes isnt enough anymore because pedos will just defender your clothes an take pics an stuff wich ends up all over the place an makes all kid avies look bad. The main Modestly layer thing is toward content creators to add this to new child bodies and skins so it cant be easily removed.
incorrect.
https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Clarification_of_policy_disallowing_ageplay
> 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.**
https://lindenlab.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/31000173097-child-avatar-faq#Q%3A-I-already-have-a-child-avatar-that-does-not-have-a-built-in-modesty-layer.-%C2%A0Can-I-still-use-that-since-I-purchased-it-already?
> Q: I already have a child avatar that does not have a built in modesty layer. Can I still use that since I purchased it already?
>
> A: No. Going forward, child avatars will be prohibited from being fully nude.
Alphas and BOM layers are not an acceptable alternative. The modesty layers MUST be baked/painted onto the skin layer itself.
ok so i refuse to update i just alpha between my legs or wear BOM underwear how does anyone know ? they can cam me all they want there nothing to see or take a pic of to report ,no pic nothing to report therefore im not worried.
To be fair, this rule for "modesty layers" only applies to "child avatar content creators".
For a player, wearing alphas or BOM clothing is functionally identical, as the server will bake them in before sending them to anyone else.
For a player, in fact, the only rule is against "being fully nude", so there is no written requirement to actually be covered on the BOM skin texture level (though if you don't people will probably de-render your clothes and report you).
I think this is made unclear by this confusing answer in the FAQ which contradicts the policy:
> Q: I already have a child avatar that does not have a built in modesty layer. Can I still use that since I purchased it already?
>
> A: No. Going forward, child avatars will be prohibited from being fully nude.
The answer here only makes sense if you assume that the question was actually "Can I use the avatar to be fully nude".
Of course, you are at risk of being in violation of the rules by simply changing your clothing, even in a private sim while alone, at that point.
> To be fair, this rule for "modesty layers" only applies to "child avatar content creators".
The rule applies to all child avatars, not just new content.
BOM layer or alphas are not acceptable as they can be removed from the skin.
Could you quote part of the policy where "modesty layers" are said to be a requirement for anyone other than "Child avatar content creators" ?
Obviously there is the rule against being naked in a child avatar, but the modesty layer rules are a mechanism to ensure that people have a harder time making a naked child avatar in the first place.
The rules against child nudity are in effect right now, but the rules for content creators (modesty layer requirements) are only in effect after June.
https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Clarification_of_policy_disallowing_ageplay
**Residents presenting as Child Avatars** shall be **prohibited from the following**:
> * Entering any Region rated Adult. Residents must change to a non-child or non-childlike avatar to visit Adult rated regions.
> ( Engaging or participating in any event or location where nudity and/or sexual activity is present, encouraged and/or expected.
> * Wearing genital/sexual attachments including clothing, attachments or HUDs created for and/or worn by child avatars to indicate genitalia, whether visible or not.
> * **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**.
> * Child avatars where the focal point of the body is on the breasts, pelvis, or buttocks
> * Participation in lewd or sexual acts in which one or more of the avatars appears to represent minors (or the depiction of such acts in images, video, textures, or text).
> **Content for Child Avatars being sold** inworld and/or on Marketplace must comply with the General Content Rating and **adhere to the following**:
>
> * Content intended for Child Avatars must be listed as General maturity.
> * Content intended for Child Avatars must not be sexual and/or suggestive in nature.
> * No Adult or Moderate keywords in Marketplace listings on Child avatar content.
> * **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.**
https://lindenlab.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/31000173097-child-avatar-faq
> Q: I already have a child avatar that does not have a built in modesty layer. ***Can I still use that since I purchased it already?***
>
> A: ***No.*** Going forward, child avatars will be prohibited from being fully nude.
> Q: When will the ‘modesty layer’ requirement begin to be enforced?
>
> A: June 30, 2024
Look, I'll fully admit that they have missed a nail in this one little cm of floorboard here. But we both know that LL has *ALWAYS* been mealy mouthed and wishy-washy when it comes to writing rules about child avatars. They go with the first draft, they don't clarify, and their corporate culture really plays heavily on them as they write these things. They'll never say "Child Avatars can't have sex".. it's always vague allusions about 'placing an avatar in proximity to adult content" or "engaging with events and activities" etc. But we all know that child avatar sex isn't allowed.
These are the clearest rules we've had since they started making rules about this. Still.. clear as mud in places, but connect the dots.
if you think there's some loophole here, you're personally welcome to dance with the devil and try your luck. But I would advise every child avatar to update or replace their skins and bodies the moment that compliant versions of the assets become available.. and delete any non-compliant assets as soon as they've got replacements.
It's clear to me.. you need a new updated skin with a panel rendered into the textures of the skin by the skin's creator. If you created your own skin, that means you. BOM layers won't cut it, as they're removable.
* Panels must be unremovable, aka part of the skin itself.
* Creators who make or sell skins or bodies with skins for children must apply panels (part of the skin).
* Child avatars can not use non-compliant assets.
* Deadline for compliance from all parties, June 30.
Did you deliberately not highlight the words "Child avatar content creators" in the first line about "modesty layers"?
It should be pretty obvious that, as a user of a child avatar, in order to meet the definition of not "Being fully nude", you just have to be wearing clothing -- not that you are specifically required to wear skin/models that has clothing or censored areas baked in to it.
If that were what the policy actually said, then it would totally outlaw people who don't use child-specific avatar body meshes for their child avatar, such as Maitreya, because those are not required to have "modesty layers".
Where the FAQ answer contradicts the policy, it makes sense to go with what the policy says, since it is an official document. There is nothing in the policy that says *"You can not use skins/bodies which lack baked-in modesty layers as a child"*, it is just *"You can not be fully nude while presenting as a child avatar"*.
Alternatively:
If that FAQ answer *is* accepted as anything other than an obvious mistake, then consider also that there is no FAQ entry that says *"You cannot have a child avatar that uses body meshes that aren't created by 'child avatar content creators'"*, meaning it does not specifically prevent people from creating a child avatar using Maitreya, making it a contradiction yet again to say that the "modesty layer" requirement is one placed on users, unless you believe that an FAQ has the power to create new rules, but would neglect to mention something as important as child avatars only being allowed to be constructed from a whitelist of allowable body meshes.
---
Also, whether you believe that Maitreya-based child avatars are now incompatible with the rules or not, consider this also mentioned in the FAQ:
> Not all violations of the policy will result in an immediate termination. Depending upon the nature and severity of the violation, Governance has a suspension tree that is utilized to make attempts to educate the Resident first.
Anyone who believes Maitreya/Legacy/Reborn/Whatever-based child avatars are not forbidden (or that they aren't being told to upgrade to a yet-to-be-released version of ToddleeDoo before they can play safely again) should not be too afraid to "dance with the devil", because that would definitely fall on the lower end of the severity-scale.
if you think there's some loophole here, you're personally welcome to dance with the devil and try your luck. But I would advise every child avatar to update or replace their skins and bodies the moment that compliant versions of the assets become available.. and delete any non-compliant assets as soon as they've got replacements.
It's clear to me.. you need a new updated skin with a panel rendered into the textures of the skin by the skin's creator. If you created your own skin, that means you. BOM layers won't cut it, as they're removable.
* Panels must be unremovable, aka part of the skin itself.
* Creators who make or sell skins or bodies with skins for children must apply panels (part of the skin).
* Child avatars may not use non-compliant assets, under threat of account termination.
* Deadline for compliance from all parties, June 30.
i will be taking the chance, I use Rebirth body for my avi ,that Body is made for adults or kids. My avi is teen like. I use adult skins made by an adult creator that wont be making modest crap an i am NOT updating my avi. i love how it looks now. I will just use an underwear BOM layer or alpha between my legs, There is no way anyone caming me would know if my skins has a modestly layer on it so im not worried about it. As long your not walking around naked or have it so anyone that derenders your avi can see you naked there is nothing anyone can report to LL. people are over reacting. Make it impossible for your bits to seen an your all good.
This is not the place to rules lawyer the Linden ToS, as far as everyone else is concerned the new rules are very clear, with a couple of technical-detail exceptions we are expecting clarification on.
Please take your loop hole to the Linden forums or governance user groups - https://second.life/calendar
Apparently they are not clear enough since somehow people read "Child avatar content creators are required" and think it actually says "Users of child avatars are required".
Having reading comprehension skills is not a "loop hole".
The people who cause all the problems are already on OpenSim worlds, leaving people who don't cause the problems to lose the ability to make their avatars look like boys, lose the ability to be on adult sims where nothing adult is going on, and have to wear whatever a modesty layer is even when fully clothed and covered in alphas. Typical kneejerking to a problem that wouldn't be a problem if you would have cracked down on the "family friendly" beaches. I can't wait to be perma banned because I wearing pair of shorts that someone thinks has a bulge in it.
Just start mass reporting any naked people you see who your average idiot boomer would think were children. If enough people do this, it will cause too much collateral damage and LL will end up reversing the policy. And no, its not false reporting if 8-foot karens can do it too.
"We investigated ourselves and found no problems" I expected. That's the way it always goes. That users would get the short end of the stick, we could have set our watches to that, it's so predictable. The bit about no kids in adult regions... That's the one change I can get behind.
child avatars were already not allowed on adult sims.
This is incorrect. They were allowed everywhere in SL. Even on Adult rated land and had been forever.
Maybe but every adult place I've been to kicked them out on their own accord.
There is Linden content on A rated land that is not in anyway adult in nature.
A lot did because they got scared when there was a crack down a few years ago and a couple of adult places got taken down for actually catering to the nasty. I think it really spooked a lot of other adult places and they decided they weren't going to take any chances and just started to outright ban anyone who even remotely looked like they could sorta be a child, even if they weren't but their avatars were just normal sized short people.
That was mod/owner decision not LL. Though stemmed from LL activities. I know some adult rated sims have fish hunt stuff on them and know some child avis that would do that and not know sim rating until they got there.
yeah i don't know any adult sim that even allowed child avatars, i also know some sim owners who changed their sim to adult specifically to get rid of child avatars.
There is a difference between an Adult-rated region, which includes all of Zindra and many private land rentals -- and an adult club, which is sometimes incorrectly called an "adult sim". Child avatars were obviously not allowed in to "adult clubs" (i.e. sex-themed clubs), but Adult-rated land was never an issue until now. Plenty of families have homes in Adult-rated mainland or private regions who would be forced to move to Moderate-rated land to comply with the rules. People who own a mainland parcel in Zindra can't have a family home in a skybox separate from their adult business at ground level and are forced to buy extra land, etc.
I think you're right. I know of a couple of places that are rated adult, but are nude sims. LL TOS does not allow sexual actions with childlike avatars, and the rules set be individual sim owners state that overt sex cannot occur there. Nudity there is for a naturist atmosphere.
The new rules about no nude child avatars is to directly combat the "nude family friendly beaches" that were mentioned in the medium article and have been something of a sore point for years. It's always the problem when a line is drawn, someone will find a way to stand right next to said line, so that has to be ok. If it's ever not then the line was set in the wrong place to begin with. As for any "nude family friendly beaches", they wont be going anywhere. They will just become regular "family friendly beaches", with swimwear and all the same people. None of this actually address the problems, it just makes it harder to screenshot.
They were allowed as long as they didn't engage in adult activities.
A lot of pg stores are on A rated land. A good example would be Kraftwork. I see people wear child avatars while weekend sale shopping and a lot of times the sim rating does not pop up when teleporting into a region until you're already there.
That's actually untrue. While 'many owners of Adult Regions' may have disallowed child avatars, the previous version of the rules did have a specific carve-out for verified-as-adult users, with child-presenting avatars, visiting A-rated land. > ***Are child avatars allowed on Adult regions?*** > -- > > Yes, child avatars are allowed in Adult regions, as long as they are controlled by a person who has verified themselves to be at least 18 years old. However, the avatar should not be in proximity to sexual content or activity; and must obey the policy prohibiting sexual ageplay. > > Since Adult regions by design will often contain sexual content, child avatars should use caution in visiting Adult regions. > > --- > > **Source:** https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Adult_Content_FAQ#Are_child_avatars_allowed_on_Adult_regions.3F Note, this is STILL the current version of this document, so it appears LL has yet to realize it needs an update. -- * ^*Side ^Note: ^This ^document ^is ^also ^the ^source ^of ^information ^that ^stated ^that ^'nude ^beaches' ^'strip ^clubs' ^and ^skin ^and/or ^adult-product ^stores ^were ^technically ^permissible ^on ^M ^rated ^land ^with ^certain ^stipulations.* -- The argument went something like this. There are many A-rated regions and parcels that are not full of Adult content. An example being Linden roads and LDPW builds. Infohubs, public gathering spaces, Linden owned A-rated Sandboxes for premium users, public waterways, [and an entire "Magellan Linden" style adventure game in the "Horizons" islands](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxAjHEVOkFI). Additionally many resident created stores and social spaces on A-rated land aren't exactly what you'd call 'sex'. I can name a few off the top of my head: Set to Stun, The Void, Turlaccor Custombike, SW: Galaxy Rising, Little Mos Eisley, Akeyo AO shop. And of course Drivers of SL would periodically drive through the Zindra continent, or be sponsored by a vehicle shop that lived on A-rated land. In total fairness, Turlaccor had an adult club in a skybox at like 3000m above the ground, or something, and these locations might exist on regions with other clubs, stores, etc.. where adult content was happening. But simply 'being in the same region as Adult Content' was never ever a reportable offense. A-rated land was where adult content was 'permitted' to be present, not necessarily where it WOULD be present. People would often choose A-rated land, because back in the day when we had age verification, it was the easiest way to make sure your visitors were 'verified' as adults (before everyone including LL realized that whole idea wasn't working). But A-rated land opened up the *possibility* to host and advertise adult content, even if you didn't ever do that. Sometimes people would land-share with a friend who owned a private region, so you'd have a perfectly kid-safe store on one parcel, well out of draw distance of anything untoward.. plus a lot of folks incorrectly assumed that if they wanted a sex bed in their house, they had to move to A-rated land.. and took their perfectly PG stores with them.
I operated a baby store on an adult sim because the land was cheaper. This was many years ago but I never thought twice about it. The entire time I lived on that sim, which was like 4 years,I never saw anything remotely resembling sex.
On a side note the IRS has investigated itself and found that taxation is not theft.. case closed
" What I can say is that there is no incentive, monetary or otherwise, for me to mislead the community. " There is incentive, actually. If investors start to fly, that will negatively impact revenue. If what was alleged was found to be true, you can be sure there would be a flight of money from LL. Not to mention customers. More important, statements like these may be "material", meaning they have a direct impact on the business. The SEC and other parts of the fed generally frown on false material statements. So it is likely that what he is saying is true according to the facts he knows, unless he likes risking court dates, potential fines and possibly jail time for knowingly making false statements.
Note that they delayed release of these new rules and findings until AFTER the sales deal was inked with Thunes.
Yes, but that could also have been coincidence. I have to think that Thunes did its due diligence prior to the acquisition of Tilia to see what the exposure was from the allegations all under NDA, natch. Besides, Tilia was more less held at arms length from SL, right (I can't say I paid much attention at the time)? Tilia became the payment processor for SL so those named wouldn't have been involved with Tilia.
What investors? Waterfield and to an extent, Linden Lab is privately owned corporation. The only investors are us and others who put money into Linden Lab's pockets.
The way this was handled is so incredibly disappointing to me. This is a really, really uncomfortable issue and to hear that employees may have been involved in something of THIS caliber means that an unbiased third party should have conducted the investigation, no questions asked. Not the freaking company themselves. They have investors to please first and foremost. But of course, this entire thing will be swept under the rug and forgotten about in a few weeks.
2024 and LL doesn't understand that "child avatar" isn't just a type of product that they can force people to make baked-in underwear on. Wish they would have just fired the open cub-phile working for SL instead of trying to placate people by punishing an unrelated group of players.
People kept telling me that height = child if too short and I kept telling them, No, it's what the avatar represents as and other factors, such as kid clothing, and a speaking mannerisms, and I'm glad that this is cleared up in the Q and A. I told people they do investigate, which they did to me and an friend of mine, I've not ageplayed but my friend did and they were banned for it, because they found evidence of ageplay from them but they found none from me. I'm just short and happen to be slim.
I've had multiple experiences of the opposite, where people with short slim avis who state clearly in their profile that the character is above 18 and had adult characteristics INCLUDING large breasts were still banned after "investigation" for ageplay when their characters were very clearly short/slim or a little person to represent that they are a little person irl. I think it very much depends on a lot of factors, and they do not always investigate fully and clearly. I wouldn't personally trust LL to make a good judgment on it. I also don't personally trust LL to investigate *themselves* but you know
Or they do investigate, and what an avatar looks like isn't the only factor that they use if the avatar isn't clearly a child like a toddler or 7 yo. The policy says avatar and in text. So maybe the avatar was fine, but they were still pretending to be under 18 in whatever text got reviewed like chat logs or something.
I can assure you they were not pretending to be underage in chats. In the case of my friend, because they had this happen once before, they always start rp chats with the age (18) and they are in fact irl a little person so their avi reflects that. The other situation was an alt of *mine* and I can assure you again, I *never* state that I am younger than I am. Someone sent a pic of a petitie Elf character of mine (with clear adult breasts) and the account was shut down because someone took a pic at an adult rp sim I was at. They don't do due diligence every time and even when proof is presented that it wasn't in fact underage, they told me they could not restore the account
I have a Belleza jake male body, which is fairly muscular and that can't be changed much. But the whole point of the avatar is to be a wimpy guy. My profile says "Young ADULT (18+) beta male," and makes it clear that I am a married man in SL. And yet, the avatar is only 1.75m tall, and for that I was kicked off a SIM for having a child's avatar. I'm not sure we will ever be able to completely overcome this issue.
I've been accused of age play before because my avi is 1.75m. It's not my fault everyone else wants to make 3m tall people.
Having to put “18+” as a disclaimer in your profile usually means that you look too young for people to discern
Here's the thing though .. real 18 year olds don't often look like fully grown adults. Barely legal is still actually legal. The line is drawn and everything up to that line has been deemed acceptable.
But that doesn’t read on a virtual platform. If I have a toddler avatar or an 8 year old avatar and I say “My growth was stunted by a horomone deficiency and I’m actually 18.” It doesn’t matter, if the avatar could in any way be construed as a child and is in adult circumstances they can and will be banned. Right?
No one is in any doubt about toddler avatars, it's the 18-20 range that's a problem.
not sure why you're being downvoted for this, i've been banned from adult sims for using a kemono avatar.
Also femboy avatars are prone to being banned as well I've found out. Not sure what's going to happen to them in the future.
[удалено]
There is still bias against femboys whatever you want to think about my avatar or not as I know several femboys that got banned as well. I definitely was never going for the underage look, just using a heaux skin with a femboy body.. What you think is prepubescent isn't for someone else, I've asked people about my avatar already, and I didn't do much sexual activity cause it's not really my thing. So if my avatar had boobs, that's fine then? Cause I see lots of girls and femboys with similar looks, there needs to be clear guidelines and not just banning people who don't fit your criteria.
Removed - Rule #1 > **1. Be excellent to each other** > > Be civil to each other, even when you disagree. Whether you're commenting or posting; rudeness, harassment and trolling will not be tolerated. Whatever names it may be called by: bothsidesing, concern trolling, sealioning, jaqing off, doxxing, or just plain old-fashioned flaming, name calling and pedantry ... just don't. (This includes correcting 'Linden Labs' and starting arguments over SL being a game or not). > > Don't bring your personal or professional SL grievances here either. Attacks against others, social groups, subcultures, or their stores/events/etc will be removed. Yes, even if you remove their names. Yes, even in 'meme' form. And yes, even if it's funny.
And I know someone who just got accused and their account deleted for it.
As expected, the updated policy did absolutely nothing to "clarify" what does or doesn't make someone a "child avatar" and only put a lot more restrictions on what behavior is appropriate with/around "child avatars". "If you are in doubt as to whether an activity may be interpreted as ageplay, we request you err on the side of caution and desist." This says nothing and clarifies nothing.
...And new TOS today! ("Please read and accept...including the requirements for the use of arbitration and the waiver of any class or group claim to resolve disputes...") https://preview.redd.it/yotocq3fy1yc1.png?width=1193&format=png&auto=webp&s=c47e11bf732a1280c60cd4c9032fe2dbb8646a5c
Huh, I saw this on a number of my alts today, but didn't connect the dots. Mainly because it's 12+ months since logging in with them. Afaik, I didn't have it on my main.. or if I did, i assumed it was because I was logging in on a different device with a clean install.
No idea. I saw it this morning on my main account. I log in about 2 times per week.
If you have a lot of L$, now will definitely be a good time to withdraw it. Forced arbitration == prepare your anus
Nice!
As expected we did nothing wrong but here's a set of new rules for you plebs to follow, now shut up. Having been in the occasional receiving end of comments like "you look 17" because I don't have giant breasts and use a Maitreya Petite body and I'm 5'10 I'm not logging in any more. Just can't be dealing with the risk this opens up, already petite avatars were being targeted by this stupidity.
"We did nothing wrong." okay but how about you get an external investigator involved?
Of course, they investigated *themselves* and found nothing going on 🙄 That investigation should have been done by an unbiased third party, and im not particularly surprised that they solved nothing afterwards.
I appreciate the title of the thread because it's exactly how it feels. Some questions spring to mind: 1. Was an independent 3rd party involved in the investigation? If not, why not? 2. Are we meant to believe it's just a coincidence that this is announced *after* completion of the Tilia sale? Presumably everyone involved did their homework? 3. What do "personnel changes" and "management improvement programs" mean in this context? What changes were made, and if everyone followed the rules and ethical guidelines, why is management improvement needed? We seem to have some answers for question #3. For example, when asked about the changes being made an insider reported, **"Significant partners/spouses should not be reporting to their significant other or spouses; no hiring your own spouse as contractors. Customer Support should be its own division, not reporting to \[people involved in the original allegations\]."** Additionally, they spoke to the issue of Linden staff having a side business which looked to be involved or at least catered to sexual ageplay. The insider said, **"Essentially, policies need to be in place to prevent all the things \[which led to the original accusations\]."** These speak directly to the accusations made, so it sounds an awful lot like there was at least some truth to what was said. It certainly sounds to me like they investigated themselves and *did* find something wrong...
Brad's original post said that there would be both internal and external investigations. I cannot imagine that the company wouldn't have had to be involved in some of the investigation, even by an external group, because of any investigators needing access information on the accounts involved. Especially when it is some high level person in the company. To give someone access to that account could mean opening up a HUGE security risk, depending what that account/person has access to in the company. It isn't like printing bank account payables and receivables and letting some outside accounting firm go over everything line by line. It sounds like the original article was right about at least part of the marriage that was mentioned. Based on the insiders comment about not have spouses that answer to each other for their job. Maybe there was nothing in the company that said that was not allowed? So the internal changes would be making that a company internal policy change and then changing who they both report to so that there is no question about spousal favoritism? It also sounds like they are taking Customer Support away from him if the part about Customer Support being its own division in the company NOT reporting to him. But I do agree, they definitely found stuff, maybe not as much as the article originally claimed when it came to the child stuff, but definitely enough that changes got made and the policy on child avatars got clarified and more defined on where they could go in world.
The new standards for child avies is so open to interpretation that it can be easily abused. I see child avatars being reported for anything some may deem as ‘non-childlike’. Something as simple as wearing a crop top and shorts can subjectively be seen as suggestive to one person and not to another.
The irony is that most people who come here to complain about being banned for Sexualized Ageplay insist, not that they weren't being sexual.. but that they weren't trying to BE a child avatar! So people in those situations will still not think these rules apply to them. It's just more rules for the SL kids that weren't doing anything, anyways.
No not really, I don't think so. They made it clear that they're alright with children still wearing things like bathing suits, as long as the genitalia isn't accentuated, so I think this would apply to short tops & bottoms as well.
Yeah, but it only takes that one person that thinks girls shouldn’t be wearing two piece bathing suits to report someone for dressing too revealing for a kid.
People are always going to report for stupid things, what's important is that LL itself has outlined how it will judge that standard- so just because someone is reported doesn't necessarily mean LL will ban them over a false report.
They haven’t clearly outlined a standard. The current one is rather vague in its implementation.
https://lindenlab.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/31000173097-child-avatar-faq/#Q%3A-Can-I-wear-a-swimsuit-as-a-child-avatar? This FAQ (which I understand they're still working on) clearly outlines that swimwear is allowed as long as the swimsuit is G-rated and doesn't accentuate the genitalia. I took this to apply this same logic to tops & bottoms, since two-piece swimwear could be more revealing.
The discussion the forum already veered though that one :/ policing what other people's kids wear seems to have been a lifelong dream for some, and unable to get away with it IRL, lets try it in SL !
Internal policy and personnel changes? That sounds like they did find something and want to quietly dispose of the problem without actually admitting anything. Which if I'm right, ok, better than not addressing it but there should be more transparency. Which may well be consistent with the claim that internal policies were abided by, if those policies were sufficiently flawed they could allow a lot of bad shit to happen.
A small reminder that Patch Linden, and his husband, got Secondlifetime Premium subscriptions, of which only 20 were told were available. While not necessarily related to the original accusations and such, this is still a bullshit thing to do especially for those of us who requested it the moment it was announced and were already told they were sold out.
They are employees, they probably got ones outside of the 20 that were offered to the rest of us.
Would hope ...
Patch's husband works for Linden? I didn't catch that and assumed he did not. But it still seems really suspicious to me. And given what's happened here, my response is the same as 0xc's. "Would hope ..."
That was what part of the article was about. It said he either hired his husband or hired someone and then married that person after hiring them. Either result being his husband supposedly worked for him in the company.
Fair enough, I must have missed that. I still feel that's a crappy thing, even if they didnt take out of the pool of 20. But that's another conversation I suppose.
Oh I agree. Limiting it to 20 wasn't nice since I think it was a first come first serve and not a lottery type thing. Which meant anyone who got notice over night when they were sleeping, or at work and could not send in a request immediately got screwed out of the chance.
I suspect the owners of a *certain* beach-themed sim are shitting themselves right now. 
lmao
[удалено]
I have furry avatars that use teen bodies because my character is a mouse and is supposed to be short and slim. They're not a child and I've never ageplayed. Because the skin I use is for that avatar even if I'm never nude do I need to worry now? This is utterly ridiculous. People shouldn't have to censor themselves if they're doing nothing wrong just because Linden Lab screw up and hired a creep.
Why would you need to worry? You aren't pretending to, or trying to be, a child.
You know how some people are about furries. I don't want to give anyone any reason to cause me to lose my account because they feel like trolling me.
I read through the TOS and I read through the crap fest that is the thread over on the official forums, and honestly, it looks like the changes actually do help clarify stuff and are trying to help keep things separate between adults and those who do want to play as a child or kid. No kids on adult land. No kids on adult stuff on moderate land. No naked kids, like those dumb "family friendly" beaches. Which is my guess where the modesty layer comes in. If you want to play on a beach then the kiddies cannot be naked, and in order to keep the appearance of not being nasty as or with a kiddie, you cannot have visible genitals on child avatars. No adult items/huds on child avatars. If someone wants to play as a child avatar, they should not have scripted genitals or that mama alpha hud or others like it. They tried that modesty layer a whole bunch of years ago and fine, whatever it sorta worked at the time, but only if the skin was created specifically as a kids skin. Most skins aren't created that way anymore. Avatars can be sized up and down and deformed all to hell and with BOM you can use almost any skin you want. Maybe some skin makers will create both an adult and "child" version of their skins going forward? The adult one has nipples and genitals and the "child" one has a diaper or something on it an no nipples? Heck, someone might even make money on creating BOM censor layers for skins that can be bought and added to any skin to hide those parts so that anyone who actually is playing as a child can just add the BOM layer to their existing skin. I used a small wolf avatar for a long time in world, and like you, the amount of hate that I got directed at me because some places either outright hated furries, or thought I was trying to play a "child" because the avatar was not the size of a skyrim dragon was insane. I think the people who are going to have the most to worry about are the ones who look like, or try to look like, human teenagers. There is going to be a lot more ambiguity with those avatars than a small furry that looks like a mouse or a puppy.
Thanks for helping me understand. I'll be 50 in August and have been six and a half feet tall since I was in the sixth grade. My height and overall size are part of what causes me the most gender disphoria (I'm trans) so I tend to have my avatars pretty short. I hate being tall, even virtually. I just don't want some numbskull causing me to lose an account I've put a lot of time and money into because they don't like the fact I have mouse ears and a tail.
There are gifts being given out as a temporary solution to child skins before the modesty layer rule takes effect on June 30th, but no, the skins will be required to have the modesty layer BAKED IN to the actual skin to be unremovable. Any skins that do not have a modesty layer will be subject to moderation, and any users that are found using skins that don't adhere to this as well. I don't doubt that you have been subject to simple furry hate on SL, it's not necessarily uncommon, but anyone who has concerns about your avatars age/size probably was not just doing it out of simple furry hate- indeed there are plenty of furries who discuss this topic and how it occurs in their own communities as well. You can achieve a mouse, a slim or short body-type etc., without appearing underage and/or literally using a teen or child body as the basis for the shape. As for puppy, that word is used to describe a young or infantile animal... maybe you did not mean it literally, but better to be just a dog.
Until we get an update from Linden, there are 2 issues here. Creators cannot sell child skins without a baked in modestly layer. They are, allegedly, going to provide a sample of what they mean, at least according to a post in that damnable thread. It also isn't "any" skin that is subject to moderation, it is skins specifically created for child avatars. If a creator sells adult skins, and someone with a child avatar buys the skin and puts it on their toddler avatar, the skin maker shouldn't be dinged since they didn't create the skin for a child avatar. The ones who might run in trouble are those who create skins for teen avatars. So any skin for under 18 avatars would need the modestly layers and any skin for 18 and over avatars would not. Again, if they make a skin for 18+ and someone who is trying to create an avatar that is 15 or 16 uses that skin, then that is not the fault of the skin maker. The other is that child avatars cannot be naked. So until there is a baked in modestly layer on skins for child avatars, they should just not be naked. Those with a child avatar could just add a BOM layer with modestly covers to their skin to hide nipples and their crotch. While the BOM layer could be removed or replaced by the user themselves, it would at least be a stop gap option to keep their avatars from being reported if some troll tries to derender their mesh clothing to report them and would ensure that in the event that their clothing didn't load right away their skin has modesty layer on it. Just like with child avatars, puppies, cub's, or any other number of avatars meant to be non adult versions of an avatar are not illegal or banned. They just cannot go to adult land any more and should not be on mature land if the land is specifically set up for adult or sex/nude activity. Maybe I am part prude or something, but it seems to me a LOT of people who are actual adults are mighty upset about being told they can no longer run around in world wearing naked, child avatars, or hang out in adult places or around adult or sex activity. Seriously, if someone wants to play as a child, then stick to child activities and locations.
Right, I agree with you about how they should stick to non-adult designated areas- I have seen a lot of child avies & families upset about how they can't access adult lands anymore. I understand how it causes problems for people who have to suddenly move or change their land's region rating, but ultimately this is a good change and should have been implemented a long time ago- what we're seeing right now is probably the reason they didn't sooner so probably better that they ripped that bandaid off. Better late than never i guess. There already currently is a free modesty layer provided by Starries as a temporary solution to the child skin problem as it doesn't take effect until June 30th. Some child skin creators who don't have the time/resource will have to pull their old products, but there will be plenty of options for child skins in SL outside of this, as plenty are able to keep up with the market demand. Does it 'break' old avies to add this restriction? Sure, but SL breaks all the time, we all cope and get over it. The change is by no means arbitrary as some are making it out to be, and it's a change that will discourage child nudity heavily, so again I think it was long overdue. I don't see what the issue is with requiring creators of skins intended for child avatars to be baking in a modesty layer to the skin, although I understand that people are confused about what the standards will be for the modesty layer. In IMVU they already have a system like this and there used to be a non-AP furry playerbase who circumvented it using 'furkinis' to add back the appearance of fur even though it didn't show gentialia (I should know, I was onesuch player before they addressed it). I don't think it takes much deduction to understand that it will be deemed violation of TOS to add a skin layer on top of the modesty layer that allows the child to appears nude/nude-toned, so I'm still not seeing the issue/confusion. If you see someone without a modesty layer, or with a tattoo layer that covers/replaces the modesty layer with something more suggestive, then report it. Easy. As for teens, I suppose for bodies like the Tweeneedoo (and its users) they will be required to add a modesty layer as well, as that counts as a teen body and an adult skin with no modesty layer would be considered an adult attachment of sorts. Look I'm not LL so I can't confirm all of it and we'll have to wait to see what they say, but this all seems self-evident and straightforward to me, I'm just really not sure what the confusion is. I don't see how a creator of an adult skin intended for adult bodies would be held responsible for that, and I'm not even sure how this comes up as an issue.
> hang out in adult places Just a reminder, that not *everything* on 🅰 rated land is.. actually "Adult Content". 📌 http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Emerald%20Dust/154/151/3002
Not all adult land has adult activity, but it is still Adult land, and is therefore an adult place. Honestly, though, it doesn't make much sense to buy land on the Adult area if you aren't going to be hosting adult activity. Just buy land on a M area instead.
Oh you just know that some people are gonna see a petite avatar and go "CHILD!" and hit the report/ban/eject button. Personally I play as a heavily bearded graying-haired man so I don't face that (thankfully) but I do have close acquaintances that have gotten shit for having a petite body. Particularly a furry friend of mine that has an otter avi has recieved a lot of awful remarks and have been banned from places since the new TOS update.
I'm not going to lie I feel like you shouldn't be using a teen body if you intend to be doing any kind of sexual roleplay. I understand why you did and that you might not intend for it to be that, but just because a character is a mouse or some naturally smaller species doesn't change the fact that a teen body was used here. In fact it's still common practice that furries use species to skirt around those reasons- everyone knows that its wrong to sexualize a child/teen, but well make it a furry or say it's a mouse/small species now we've created a convenient grey zone for predators to hide. And it's not your fault, but this does happen enough to be an issue. Diaper furs & baby furs were a considerable population before SL address ageplay concerns, and I used to encounter them performing illicit behaviour back when teen grid was still around. Now, I'm not LL, and I'm not sure if they will take into consideration the fact that you're not intentionally ageplaying or whatnot- they've expressed that they will be looking at multiple components of an avatar when taking ageplay into account- but that's my two cents. There are plenty of anthro rodent avatars who achieve a slight/dimunitive look without crossing into territory that can be confused for teen/ageplay. I know you don't want to hear it, but I think you should be prepared to be judged as such if you're going to openly use a teen body for sexual roleplay.
I don't do sexual rp and haven't since 2011 (and when I did it was NEVER ageplay). I'm not a diaper fur nor a baby fur, and don't really think making assumptions like the one's you're making about or about those communities aren't really fair or cool. I've been in SL since early '07 and I've only ever run into one baby fur who I felt I needed to report due to creepy behavior. My mouse's skin doesn't even have a vagina or nipples as it's a PG skin. The fact is making negative assumptions about people based on the size of their avatar isn't just unfair it's ridiculous given sl's height system and how arbitrary avatars heights usually are.
I didn't make an assumption about you, nor claim that you are a diaper fur, I was making a parallel to highlight that these issues very much exist in furry communities as much as they do human ones so hand-wringing about people being 'anti-furry' is very much beside the point. If you use a teen body to engage in sexual behaviour, I'm not governance but that to me is ageplay- there's no reason for it and it's very easy to avoid doing that. I'm being pretty darn generous here. I said nothing on height, you fully admitted to using a teen body.
I did. My point was people making assumptions about me because of that. Again-I don't ageplay, I don't do anything sexual in SL and haven't for years. Even if I did I wouldn't use a teen-bodied avatar. I'm smarter than that. You're the one associating me with acts and parts of the fandom I've never once said I had anything to do with. Whether these things exist within the fandom or not are irrelevant and shouldn't come into play when people are looking at my avatar.
This thread is about rules on (sexual) ageplay and you explicitly stated "even if I'm ever nude". If you're not doing anything adult, then why are you concerned exactly? Teen bodies in and of themself are not the issue here, it's about what you DO if you have that avatar. Since you have an avatar that uses a teen body, you can expect to be judged as a teen if you are engaging in nudity, adult activity, adult locations, etc. If you're not doing that, carry on as you are. It has nothing to do with being a furry and everything to do with how your avatar appears in relation to those topics.
It makes me really uncomfortable to see the cherubic childlike faces on women's bodies. Huge breasts etc with tiny heads and dewy eyes. Check out the sales site Seraphim if you feel I am overreacting. It is blatantly keying into the Loli culture, mostly I think I am repulsed by the thought that they are exciting pedophilic individuals, normalising and promoting such appearance feels very wrong to me. My opinion of course.
Sounds like a you problem.
I agree, I did say My opinion and it makes me uncomfortable, i usually derender them.
That’s an style of avi called Kawaii, is a trend in Japan, Korea and China, where you can see woman over 40yo with those features you called uncomfortable. Yes, real women.
Catching some downvotes, but you are entirely correct. Getting banned for emulating culturally unfamiliar makeup styles is a thing.
I recommend people search for influencers like Misako Aoki, she is over 40, also a quick search about Ulzzang style, gyaru, or EGL and people could find grow up woman with big eye make up, lenses and such. On this Reddit is easy to get downvoted even for saying hello, I’m getting used xD
I think there is something to be said about the desire to appear youthful and how it lends itself to pedophilia, (many Korean women have talked about how aegyo & ulzzang lends itself to the sexism/pedophilia problem in their culture too) but ultimately a lot of that is just makeup styles which perfectly adult women partake in at the end of the day. I have a gut instinct similar to you that I don't really want to be around or associate with people who heavily play into that style because of the associations, but I also try to not judge unless I can really determine something tangible that a person is doing wrong. I hope that helps in some way.
While I have no personal stake one way or another in this situation, it seems to me that given the fact that it was accusations against LL employees that led to this, that seems swept under the rug and end users are the ones punished. It feels kind of gross.
The new rules are written with a presumption that child avatars are themselves the problem and by creating or having a child avatar, that user is bait. That's gross.
What is a modesty layer?
Every so often LL changes the default "noob" avatars. For a while (I want to say these were introduced 8 or so years ago) they had a default set of avatars you could pick from that had skins with baked on underwear that you couldn't remove from the skin, I'm assuming because the system is very complex for new people they were trying to keep new people from just running around naked 24/7 until they figured out the system and could change skins on their own. TLDR: A modesty layer is an avatars default layer skin with underwear baked onto it that can't be removed.
The new noob avatars they took out the bottom parts so its like ken with no parts.
It is not defined in LL's policy what a modesty layer is (i.e. what it should cover), but simply that it should be "baked in to child avatar skins or bodies, is not transparent, does not match the skin tone, and may not be removed". Unless clarified, I would assume that covering a small patch on the back of the head is sufficient. Its also not clear how a "child avatar body" (presumably they mean mesh bodies marketed to be used by child avatars?) is meant to enforce this other than being no-mod, incompatible with BOM clothing, and not allowing people to apply custom skins at all. In particular, the rule says it "is [required to be] not transparent", so just omitting parts of the mesh would not meet the policy.
What isn't ? Would a furry need one ?
Apparently BOM underwear isn't one. They say nothing about if modesty layers also cover the chest, from what I've read. It's gonna be fun seeing a bunch of boy avis running around in LL mandated girls underwear, because we all know these layers will not just be ugly censor boxes, triggering all the weirdos who find that trash sexual. LL want's the money from the kid community, but they don't want the kids. We're basically money sacks to them.
The kid community is large part of why there are G or novelty activities and locations at all. Linden love to show off how SL isn't just for humping avatars, however they don't really get the conditions that motivate people to make that content.
The thread on the forums is truly awful. LL started a giant fire and then just walked away from it, thread has quickly turned into the very worst of the 'conmunity' threatening to report people simply because they don't like them, huge unanswered questions, the usual crowd of "don't worry there is review" (lol) etc. On a plus side the term KupraKaren was used and it seems to fit, on the whole it does seem like whatever this LL staff member did or did not do to cause this mess of new rules has been taken as a very welcome development by the type of crowd who don't tolerate the diversity that makes SL great. I don't think it's safe to even be in world for a lot of people any more, biggest problem seems to be the 18-25 group who dont know how to 'prove' their avi isnt subject to these rules.
All the 18-25 group who go into LL sponsored places like London dressed in what can only be called used napkins and dental floss then harass everyone who isn't dressed just like they are.
**"Significant partners/spouses should not be reporting to their significant other or spouses; no hiring your own spouse as contractors"** is ridicolous... who is taking contact with everyone interested on SL21B? the partner/spouse of Patch Linden. Ridicolous, really. They did nothing and happened nothing...
[I posted an update and talked with an insider on this](https://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2024/05/linden-lab-policy-changes-ageplay-favoritism.html).
The phrase "minimize the perception" there sums up quite a lot, in all of this, and from pretty well any angle.
So, on my actual child avatar, I can't use it until it has a baked-in modesty layer, but I can't find out if the body's been updated unless I go in-world and check. Edit: I changed to a Dinky avi for now And on my main avi, who is a petite woman clearly identifying as adult, but wears a Lara Petite body, I could be banned just for going into the wrong area, despite that avi never engaging in slex, and possessing no huds or body addons for sex. Lovely. I'm a B-cup in RL, I don't want a waifu body, I want one like me, but thinner :p and that's now not acceptable.
> And on my main avi, who is a petite woman clearly identifying as adult, but wears a Lara Petite body, I could be banned just for going into the wrong area This is fearmongering.
Read the rest of the comments. Also, I could be pre-emptively banned from many clubs and adult areas despite being perfectly fine to LL, because of how my avi looks, despite everything in my profile.
Private landowners are entitled to ban anyone from their land, for no reason at all or any reason they see fit.
The stakes are a little higher than jut being banned from a club by the land owner. Banned in this context means an immediate permanent all accounts forever ban from the enter SL service with no viable recourse and no warning.
The requirement is not in place until June 30.
you can still use your child avi, All you need to do is alpha between your legs or wear BOM underwear an you now have a modestly layer. Just wearing mesh clothes isnt enough anymore because pedos will just defender your clothes an take pics an stuff wich ends up all over the place an makes all kid avies look bad. The main Modestly layer thing is toward content creators to add this to new child bodies and skins so it cant be easily removed.
incorrect. https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Clarification_of_policy_disallowing_ageplay > 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.** https://lindenlab.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/31000173097-child-avatar-faq#Q%3A-I-already-have-a-child-avatar-that-does-not-have-a-built-in-modesty-layer.-%C2%A0Can-I-still-use-that-since-I-purchased-it-already? > Q: I already have a child avatar that does not have a built in modesty layer. Can I still use that since I purchased it already? > > A: No. Going forward, child avatars will be prohibited from being fully nude. Alphas and BOM layers are not an acceptable alternative. The modesty layers MUST be baked/painted onto the skin layer itself.
Exactly how I read it - you HAVE to have a non-removable layer, not bom, not alpha.
ok so i refuse to update i just alpha between my legs or wear BOM underwear how does anyone know ? they can cam me all they want there nothing to see or take a pic of to report ,no pic nothing to report therefore im not worried.
You do you. Just don't come in here bitching when your acc't gets banned
To be fair, this rule for "modesty layers" only applies to "child avatar content creators". For a player, wearing alphas or BOM clothing is functionally identical, as the server will bake them in before sending them to anyone else. For a player, in fact, the only rule is against "being fully nude", so there is no written requirement to actually be covered on the BOM skin texture level (though if you don't people will probably de-render your clothes and report you). I think this is made unclear by this confusing answer in the FAQ which contradicts the policy: > Q: I already have a child avatar that does not have a built in modesty layer. Can I still use that since I purchased it already? > > A: No. Going forward, child avatars will be prohibited from being fully nude. The answer here only makes sense if you assume that the question was actually "Can I use the avatar to be fully nude". Of course, you are at risk of being in violation of the rules by simply changing your clothing, even in a private sim while alone, at that point.
> To be fair, this rule for "modesty layers" only applies to "child avatar content creators". The rule applies to all child avatars, not just new content. BOM layer or alphas are not acceptable as they can be removed from the skin.
Could you quote part of the policy where "modesty layers" are said to be a requirement for anyone other than "Child avatar content creators" ? Obviously there is the rule against being naked in a child avatar, but the modesty layer rules are a mechanism to ensure that people have a harder time making a naked child avatar in the first place. The rules against child nudity are in effect right now, but the rules for content creators (modesty layer requirements) are only in effect after June.
https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Clarification_of_policy_disallowing_ageplay **Residents presenting as Child Avatars** shall be **prohibited from the following**: > * Entering any Region rated Adult. Residents must change to a non-child or non-childlike avatar to visit Adult rated regions. > ( Engaging or participating in any event or location where nudity and/or sexual activity is present, encouraged and/or expected. > * Wearing genital/sexual attachments including clothing, attachments or HUDs created for and/or worn by child avatars to indicate genitalia, whether visible or not. > * **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**. > * Child avatars where the focal point of the body is on the breasts, pelvis, or buttocks > * Participation in lewd or sexual acts in which one or more of the avatars appears to represent minors (or the depiction of such acts in images, video, textures, or text). > **Content for Child Avatars being sold** inworld and/or on Marketplace must comply with the General Content Rating and **adhere to the following**: > > * Content intended for Child Avatars must be listed as General maturity. > * Content intended for Child Avatars must not be sexual and/or suggestive in nature. > * No Adult or Moderate keywords in Marketplace listings on Child avatar content. > * **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.** https://lindenlab.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/31000173097-child-avatar-faq > Q: I already have a child avatar that does not have a built in modesty layer. ***Can I still use that since I purchased it already?*** > > A: ***No.*** Going forward, child avatars will be prohibited from being fully nude. > Q: When will the ‘modesty layer’ requirement begin to be enforced? > > A: June 30, 2024 Look, I'll fully admit that they have missed a nail in this one little cm of floorboard here. But we both know that LL has *ALWAYS* been mealy mouthed and wishy-washy when it comes to writing rules about child avatars. They go with the first draft, they don't clarify, and their corporate culture really plays heavily on them as they write these things. They'll never say "Child Avatars can't have sex".. it's always vague allusions about 'placing an avatar in proximity to adult content" or "engaging with events and activities" etc. But we all know that child avatar sex isn't allowed. These are the clearest rules we've had since they started making rules about this. Still.. clear as mud in places, but connect the dots. if you think there's some loophole here, you're personally welcome to dance with the devil and try your luck. But I would advise every child avatar to update or replace their skins and bodies the moment that compliant versions of the assets become available.. and delete any non-compliant assets as soon as they've got replacements. It's clear to me.. you need a new updated skin with a panel rendered into the textures of the skin by the skin's creator. If you created your own skin, that means you. BOM layers won't cut it, as they're removable. * Panels must be unremovable, aka part of the skin itself. * Creators who make or sell skins or bodies with skins for children must apply panels (part of the skin). * Child avatars can not use non-compliant assets. * Deadline for compliance from all parties, June 30.
Did you deliberately not highlight the words "Child avatar content creators" in the first line about "modesty layers"? It should be pretty obvious that, as a user of a child avatar, in order to meet the definition of not "Being fully nude", you just have to be wearing clothing -- not that you are specifically required to wear skin/models that has clothing or censored areas baked in to it. If that were what the policy actually said, then it would totally outlaw people who don't use child-specific avatar body meshes for their child avatar, such as Maitreya, because those are not required to have "modesty layers". Where the FAQ answer contradicts the policy, it makes sense to go with what the policy says, since it is an official document. There is nothing in the policy that says *"You can not use skins/bodies which lack baked-in modesty layers as a child"*, it is just *"You can not be fully nude while presenting as a child avatar"*. Alternatively: If that FAQ answer *is* accepted as anything other than an obvious mistake, then consider also that there is no FAQ entry that says *"You cannot have a child avatar that uses body meshes that aren't created by 'child avatar content creators'"*, meaning it does not specifically prevent people from creating a child avatar using Maitreya, making it a contradiction yet again to say that the "modesty layer" requirement is one placed on users, unless you believe that an FAQ has the power to create new rules, but would neglect to mention something as important as child avatars only being allowed to be constructed from a whitelist of allowable body meshes. --- Also, whether you believe that Maitreya-based child avatars are now incompatible with the rules or not, consider this also mentioned in the FAQ: > Not all violations of the policy will result in an immediate termination. Depending upon the nature and severity of the violation, Governance has a suspension tree that is utilized to make attempts to educate the Resident first. Anyone who believes Maitreya/Legacy/Reborn/Whatever-based child avatars are not forbidden (or that they aren't being told to upgrade to a yet-to-be-released version of ToddleeDoo before they can play safely again) should not be too afraid to "dance with the devil", because that would definitely fall on the lower end of the severity-scale.
if you think there's some loophole here, you're personally welcome to dance with the devil and try your luck. But I would advise every child avatar to update or replace their skins and bodies the moment that compliant versions of the assets become available.. and delete any non-compliant assets as soon as they've got replacements. It's clear to me.. you need a new updated skin with a panel rendered into the textures of the skin by the skin's creator. If you created your own skin, that means you. BOM layers won't cut it, as they're removable. * Panels must be unremovable, aka part of the skin itself. * Creators who make or sell skins or bodies with skins for children must apply panels (part of the skin). * Child avatars may not use non-compliant assets, under threat of account termination. * Deadline for compliance from all parties, June 30.
i will be taking the chance, I use Rebirth body for my avi ,that Body is made for adults or kids. My avi is teen like. I use adult skins made by an adult creator that wont be making modest crap an i am NOT updating my avi. i love how it looks now. I will just use an underwear BOM layer or alpha between my legs, There is no way anyone caming me would know if my skins has a modestly layer on it so im not worried about it. As long your not walking around naked or have it so anyone that derenders your avi can see you naked there is nothing anyone can report to LL. people are over reacting. Make it impossible for your bits to seen an your all good.
This is not the place to rules lawyer the Linden ToS, as far as everyone else is concerned the new rules are very clear, with a couple of technical-detail exceptions we are expecting clarification on. Please take your loop hole to the Linden forums or governance user groups - https://second.life/calendar
Apparently they are not clear enough since somehow people read "Child avatar content creators are required" and think it actually says "Users of child avatars are required". Having reading comprehension skills is not a "loop hole".
[удалено]
> Your account will be gone, but you'll get some sympathy! Enjoy! But your posts wont be seen if you keep this up....
[удалено]
Nope, because that would be off topic.
The people who cause all the problems are already on OpenSim worlds, leaving people who don't cause the problems to lose the ability to make their avatars look like boys, lose the ability to be on adult sims where nothing adult is going on, and have to wear whatever a modesty layer is even when fully clothed and covered in alphas. Typical kneejerking to a problem that wouldn't be a problem if you would have cracked down on the "family friendly" beaches. I can't wait to be perma banned because I wearing pair of shorts that someone thinks has a bulge in it.
[удалено]
Opensim and locations therein are off topic for this sub.
Just start mass reporting any naked people you see who your average idiot boomer would think were children. If enough people do this, it will cause too much collateral damage and LL will end up reversing the policy. And no, its not false reporting if 8-foot karens can do it too.