SL Updates Child Avatar Policy

[Madi Perth]

This is a battle a company can't win IMHO.
If they find nothing then one gets this type of reaction.
If they find something the reaction will be "I told you so".
People want to believe the smut versions. That's why tabloids and Fox News can florish.

They didn't' find anything wrong in their circle so they decide to punish my community just for shits and giggles.

 

[Jopsy Pendragon]

They didn't' find anything wrong in their circle so they decide to punish my community just for shits and giggles.

... I'm sorry ... have you -met- humans before? People in power, when guilty of, or even associated with, 'distasteful crimes' turn into porcupines, sprouting pointy finger trying to shift the guilt to anyone, everyone and -especially- at their accusers and their own victims.

 

[Noodles]

The modesty layer makes sense from a corporate POV - its purpose is to eliminate a potential source of arousal the few age player abusers in SL might enjoy which is peekaboo.

It makes sense since you can (I think) selectively.hide objects, though I am not sure about attachments. The idea being you couldn't just dress the child avatar normally, then the other person simply "hides" the clothing, so they still see a naked avatar.

These new rules overall seem like a good idea. I do wonder how much it relies on reporting. What is to stop some group simply using a private region with no access allowed except for "trusted insiders."

I am sure there is chat logging at least, I wonder if there is some moderation system skimming that.

 

[Madi Perth]

Well, I've made a decision on where I'm going with SL. I'm going to age myself up to fit in with the new draconian laws. For me all joy in SL is gone because I can't be myself. I'll still login but and I will still participate in activities and events, but that will no longer be my primary use of the platform. For over a decade virtually every cent I made in SL went back in to SL. No more. My primary goal now will be to extract every cent I can from this platform. LL only seems to care about the bottom line, I see no reason I should see it differently.

 

[Zaida Gearbox]

I don't see anything in the new guidelines that seems unreasonable. Even though I have aged up to protect my brand - I kind of wish I could get adult skin with baked on underwear.

 

[Argent Stonecutter]

How old is Renard anyway?

 

[Madi Perth]

I don't see anything in the new guidelines that seems unreasonable. Even though I have aged up to protect my brand - I kind of wish I could get adult skin with baked on underwear.

Most of what they want is actually reasonable. From the feed back that I've been getting, and I have been getting a lot. I have had people showing up at my door in world to talk about the changes. No nudity in public and no adult regions. The no adult regions has been a unwritten rule for a very long time. No loss there. The nudity issue has caused some concern in some circles but has basically been accepted.

• 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.

This is the deal braker for myself and many others. This 'modestly layer' breaks decades of content , with of a loss of thousands of dollars to users and creators. The main issue with this is its really not a problem. The offending parts can simply be alpha out on every body I've seen or in my body, completely removed.

The thing that really gets me mad is the fact that the child community didn't do anything wrong but are being punished anyway.

 

[Noodles]

How old is Renard anyway?

I know this is a joke, but also I wonder if there will be flurries looking for "loopholes."

 

[Madi Perth]

One of my closest friends just left SL because of this bullshit. I think I'm done.

 

[Beebo Brink]

• 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.

This is the deal braker for myself and many others. This 'modestly layer' breaks decades of content , with of a loss of thousands of dollars to users and creators.

I'm confused as to how this policy is being applied. This is really far too simplistic a statement to provide much clarity, certainly not enough to substantiate your comment about it being a deal-breaker.

For instance, is this skin requirement retroactive for all existing child avatar skins on the grid? Or is it a new requirement going forward? Are they expecting users to completely delete old inventory, or for creators to replace textures to update all products?

There are so many different ways that this policy could be implemented, much less policed, that it's meaningless so far.

 

[Madi Perth]

For instance, is this skin requirement retroactive for all existing child avatar skins on the grid? Or is it a new requirement going forward? Are they expecting users to completely delete old inventory, or for creators to replace textures to update all products?

It is a requirement on all skins, past, present, and future. All old inventory is now banned. Years of content, thousands of dollars. My friend was a major creator of child clothing. She just logged in, said it's not worth it. An I agree with her. It's just not worth it any more. I've lost so many friends in the past 24 hours. I've put years into this platform. I developed so many close relationships. In 2020 we buried two of our friends. One of the families live streamed one of them funeral because she considered us family. I'm closer to some of these people than I am my own RL family.

 

[Zaida Gearbox]

I'm confused as to how this policy is being applied. This is really far too simplistic a statement to provide much clarity, certainly not enough to substantiate your comment about it being a deal-breaker.

For instance, is this skin requirement retroactive for all existing child avatar skins on the grid? Or is it a new requirement going forward? Are they expecting users to completely delete old inventory, or for creators to replace textures to update all products?

There are so many different ways that this policy could be implemented, much less policed, that it's meaningless so far.

I read it as all child avis need to go out and buy new skins/bodies, but these things aren't available yet, so you could also read it as a temporary ban on child avis.

 

[Imnotgoing Sideways]

Honestly, the update looks like lip service to me. The wording may emphasize previously implicit intent. But, in typical Lab fashion, it's no more or less as ambiguous as it's always been. At it's worst, it'll trigger a brief witch-hunt. Lay low, let the blogs have their fun, and eventually go back to business as usual. (-_-)

 

[Zaida Gearbox]

It's not all old inventory - it's all old skins/bodies that haven't got bits covered. My first skin as a child avi had baked on underwear, and I quite liked it. But, it got to be dated and I upgraded, and ended up with skin that had all the realistic bits, and I didn't really like it that much. I was always very worried about what if I accidently rezzed in somewhere before my clothes.

A couple of people reached out to me to ask me about my experiences with being sleazed on as a child avi. I told them - in 14 years it happened twice. If I knew some place wasn't child friendly - I either didn't go or sent an alt account. Once another child avi and I put on little owl avatars to go to a Boobie-thon event (remember that?). We were a pair of hooters. The reason I do not usually switch back and forth between adult/child form on the same account is because I worry about people accusing me of age play for something I did in adult form. Much better to have separate accounts. Unfortunately, my building brand was under the child's name, so I am not a child anymore.

I get sleazed on way more as an adult - if I'm out and about - it's at least once a day.

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

There are so many different ways that this policy could be implemented, much less policed, that it's meaningless so far.

But that right there is the problem. Because as you say the policy is simplistic and too vague to easily comply with, but the stakes for not complying are a banning.

It's a whole mess to just drop out of the sky on people who are not only suddenly out all the money they've spent so far on clothes and skins that they can never wear again because they don't meet the requirements, but can still lose everything else too at any moment because the creators of the new "compliant" avatar components they had to race to buy didn't correctly guess LL's intentions.

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

This is the deal braker for myself and many others. This 'modestly layer' breaks decades of content , with of a loss of thousands of dollars to users and creators. The main issue with this is its really not a problem. The offending parts can simply be alpha out on every body I've seen or in my body, completely removed.

Well, the other solution would have been a complete ban on child avatars. Considering that, a modesty layer is something probably most can live with.

 

[Madi Perth]

Well, the other solution would have been a complete ban on child avatars. Considering that, a modesty layer is something probably most can live with.

No, it wouldn't. There is no reason for any of these new rules to be coming into effect. The only reason you keep harping about a ban on child avatars is because that is what you want. There was nothing wrong with the system in place. Our community did a good job of policing its own and we don't need any advice or comments from people like you.

 

[Jopsy Pendragon]

Our community did a good job of policing its own

Your social community may have done an absolutely fantastic job of self-policing, banning/reporting bad actors 100% of the time.

But your social community is a subset of the -entire- community of avatars that share the descriptive trait of being 'child avatars'. There are likely as many who exist unpoliced by your community because they don't participate in your social fabric.

LL doesn't care whether the child avatar is part of your 'social community' or 'the larger community of avatars that look like children'... they want one policy for all of them. Independent bad actors and responsible self-policing types.

It's like having a bucket of water in the back yard. It may be blameless and the breeding may be going on elsewhere... but when there's a mosquito problem, it's going to be dealt with as well. Even if only from a precautionary standpoint.

It sucks that your social network isn't trusted to be responsible enough to continue to operate under the old policy, but it is what it is.

 

[Beebo Brink]

"People like you"?

And who exactly are these people?

 

[Madi Perth]

"People like you"?

And who exactly are these people?

You know who they are. The same ones I was worried about when all this started. I predicted another witch-hunt would happen and that is exactly what is happening. On the official forums there are people who are just cackling with glee about this. We have already had a incident in world where someone is trying to trap one of my friends.

If Bartholomew Gallacher is not one of those people, the I am out of line and I apologize. Last night was very difficult time for me.