Define: Broadly Offensive

There is another reason this can happen, the person responsible for banning the vendors as a financial interest either for themselves or for a friend, it could be complete out and out corruption within the ranks of the Lindens. Of course if it is, they cover it up by hiding the true nature of complaint or the name of the complainer.

I find the G-Team's unprofessional conduct to be Broadly Offensive.

Well I hope this isn't a case of you make too good of stuff so I am going to get you banned and if it was Gteam wouldn't be a part of it if they wanted to be professionals.
But they are human they makes and sometimes do ban sometimes the victim of grief attacks let the griefer go on their merry way after the griefer has AR someone now and then.

I beleive skins on the teen grid have baked on underwear. Surely if it is required for general use on the TG it cannot be too offensive for us to be exposed to it? Or are we too delicate to be exposed to things that 13 year olds can handle?

what pretty much bothers me is the long line of mistakes LL has made and the lack of decency to admit them time after time yet people blindly entrust LL with hundreds, and thousands of dollars a month and trust them to do the right thing. I dropped down to basic, removed my CC info awhile back because I can still use the 'game' to see friends but I have lost all trust in LL.

Agreed. If this is the person I'm thinking of-- and I'm sure it is-- I would really hate to see her be forced into leaving because of something so ridiculous. One only has to look at her record to see how much she's contributed to SL, and to understand how insane it is to even suggest she could be involved in something 'lewd' with a child.


Agreed again. I can understand needing to have clear guidelines for depicting children, but this is just getting beyond stupid. If innocent vendor pics like this are seen as 'lewd,' then I'm truly scared to see what'll be censored next.

An absolute guarantee that LL will never do it.

The color blue, growing grains and beans in the same field, jigsaw puzzles, and bare table legs.

This is typically LL reacting on what is happening in (parts of) the world. Crazy stuff.

We live in a world where a picture nude child is offensive, a father should be scared to bathe with his child, and making pictures of your own children on the beach is even on the edge.

As soon as we show a nipple or breast, it is called mature. Pictures of violence however, are complete accepted. Nudity is offensive, violence is not.

I do understand why LL acts like this, they are probably scared as hell for the consequences if they even come close to showing things that our puritan society disapproves of. Second Life is just a small version of Real Life, to a certain degree.

Result: Nudity, whether adult or child, is more offensive then running around in a nazi uniform.

I would define "Broadly Offensive" as anything that looks like Immy's FACE.

Boogerhead. (=_=)

QFT. Do you mind if I quote this in my blog?

Permision to repost granted, for you and for anyone else reporting on this mess.

....that's it? Just "boogerhead"?


Man, I kinda feel bad now.

I'm glad I have an adult avi, albeit a short one. After reading this thread, I just want to say two things:

1) I'm shocked (and saddened) that child avi's come with baked on underware. This really limits design possiblities for any one making clothes. Yes, I've designed underware for my avatar and bathing suits. It's fun. Why shouldn't someone with a kid avi get the same range of freedom, and underware for kids in the real world (and bathing suits of course) comes in all kinds of colors and patterns. Little girls wear camisoles by the way or if at the beach, they can wear bikinis (This is considered poor taste in some quarters but not broadly offensive) or other swim wear. Clothing design is not age play, and people make plenty of things on SL that the whole world doesn't see. Nearly all the stuff on my land falls into that category. There just is no traffic in that section of Hartley.

2) Broadly offensive is legalese for taboo. Taboos are not rational. No one wants to admit they are not behaving rationally, but pictures of children in compromising positions are considered taboo in American culture. This is true even when there are absolutely no children involved in any way in making those pictures. A child avi in SL has an adult behind it and the avi itself is a very realistic drawing so there is no child used in its creation. Since there is no rape in SL, there is no molestation either.

However, anything that even remotely hints of child exploitation is taboo. To view it is taboo. To create it is taboo. To show it to others is taboo. It is sinful. It must be banished. I guess all cultures have to have their taboos.

As a 4'8" adult avi on SL, I used to be afraid I'd get drawn into this fight. I try to dress myself formally and maturely. I think that this taboo scares even me. I really wish SL would behave rationally even if that scaird a lot of people and made bad publicity. The taboo mentality appears to be banning a lot of innocent activity and harming those who have no interest in a forbidden act.

By the way, I still feel uncomfortable with the pervasive sexuality in SL, but I think this taboo approach to kid avis is wrong headed.

I don't know if it's still the case, but the vendor I was familiar with packaged two versions of their kid skins in what you got. "Panties" had the underpants baked on, and non-removable, for those who wanted something unquestionably G-rated. "Doll" had no more torso or crotch detailing than a Barbie doll - just smooth skin. It was the skin with baked-on undies that was pictured in the vendor.

It's been a while since I looked at that skin set in my inventory, so I can't recall if the "Doll" version had nipples or not. Once I got my set, it was combined with an initial clothing set of play clothes, and I seldom rezzed into that form without changing the entire outfit at once, including the kid clothes. Maybe both had nipples, and Doll was just un-detailed in the groin area?

It looks like the skin maker I am familiar with is leaning to just showing the face on the vendor, and maybe a hand, but not changing the skins. They are waiting for a chance to talk directly to someone in authority to ensure that whatever decision they make won't inmmediately get flaged as "bad" by these over-zealous censors.

My skin is my own adaptation of Eloh's skin templates for the Re line of skins she offered. It have been cleared of any unneeded baked in shadows and curves, makeup free, has a reduced nipple size, has my birthmark, and is 'correct'. While I do often make crude jokes about running around nude, it's rare that I ever really do it. I just have too many nice outfits to go about it. (^_^)

Many people here have seen my personal dress code and it is true that prema-panties would cause trouble with many of my clothing choices. But, if a skin maker decides to include them, I'm far from opposed to the practice. What LL needs to see is that there ARE people on this grid with PG personalities, that they mean well, and that tossing crude and plastic accusations around like this is not healthy for the community. (>_<

I can now say I've seen the vendors in question myself. I was driven to freaking tears that someone would consider the depictions offensive in any way... In fact, I think I have to stop here... The urge to fall in to a swearing effing rant is overpowering.

To clarify, the well-established (and highly esteemed in my opinion; it will be a huge loss to SL if she leaves) skin creator affected by this included skins with baked on underwear and a "doll" version with no details drawn "down there". Her vendors showed a picture of the baked underwear version.

The newer creator being referred to is me. My skin likewise comes in two versions, albeit one of them is the aforementioned "doll" style for those who want to prevent embarrassing wardrobe malfunctions and/or use the skin to portray a boy and the other is "correct". The vendor that got returned, generating a LL warning/suspension email, showed the avatar wearing panties as well.

In my appeal, I pointed out that I had assumed that my vendor was within community standards given that public child nudity was acceptable according to previous statements by LL as long as it wasn't a sexualized portrayal or in proximity to sexual or violent themes. My appeal was denied by the G-Team leader, the same person who returned the vendor in the first place. The email response I got also indicated that I should ensure that all of my other vendors were changed to present the avatar skin for sale as "fully clothed". I immediately replaced the textures on all of my vendors to show the avatar in a two-piece bathing suit.

I'm not one to knowingly/intentionally violate rules on a site....I'm frequently the first one to defend the right of a site owner to make whatever rules they want, regardless of how much sense I think the rules make. I've always thought that when you're at someone's house, you follow their rules...or leave. And before I even started on this project, I researched and checked everything I could to ensure I was conforming to what little LL had said publicly regarding their stance on this issue. I didn't rent any locations that had sexual or violent themes or objects anywhere near (which limited my selection quite a bit, I can say that).

To illustrate the illogic in all this, I keep returning to the fact that LL has stated that child avatar nudity is acceptable in certain situations/areas (with reasonable restrictions, I might add, such as no sexualized objects or themes nearby). So, I keep pondering the idea of hiring models to stand next to my bathing-suit-wearing skin/av vendors. In the case of my shop and the kid-friendly naturist resort I rent a space at, the models would be fully nude and anatomically correct. I love the idea, as it quite clearly demonstrates the irrationality of this latest action when compared to previous LL statements on the subject. OTOH, I don't wanna get into trouble. I don't want to be going against LL's whims....it's their site, they can do as they please.

What I DO want is for them to, once and for all, TELL ME WHAT IS AND IS NOT ALLOWED. If they don't want pictures of child avs dressed like they typically do every single day on beaches throughout the entire world, then fine, JUST SAY SO. We can whine about how silly we think it is, but at least we know what we gotta do to avoid having warnings applied against our accounts and black marks on our names. I tried my best to follow what they said their rules were, and got nailed. And the thing is....my warning said I had violated the community standards and quoted the rule which I had violated......and that quote appears NOWHERE in the community standards document. I'm capable of a lot of things, but mind-reading isn't one of them, and I don't see how on earth I'm supposed to comply with rules that I can't see until I've accidentally violated them.

George Orwell, please come to the white courtesy phone. Mister Orwell, you are wanted at the white courtesy phone.

Suggestion: Pose the kids playing Zyngo or Deal. G-Team loves those things. Maybe throw in some glowing purple crystals--they're positively mesmerized by those.

Rhian, I am sorry that happen to you. You're doing the best you can.
Even if they had nipples or nude skin...nudity nor nipples is neccessarily even sexual.
Yet sadly there is so much focus on sexuality and fetishes, perhaps the Gteam is just over-covering their behinds just in case, you may have gotten one tagged in this situation.
Hopefully it will all work out.

Personally, I would write Robin. This isn't the first time the G-Team made a bad call (Z bucks, anyone?) and this inanity/insanity has the potential to drive away one of our most respected and trusted sources of information and content.

I suspect she'll probably just back Harry's decision. There are days when I feel it's already too late.

what I do not get is why make a "doll" version or a panty version of a child skin

kids (human ones) are human too and have the parts just like adults, albeit bare because of age.

I just do not get all this fear and such about anatomically correct kids skins... so freaking what, they are that way in the real world, so why not in SL...

the ones that use it for lewdness will find a way to do so no matter what... making a kid specific skin without that is just wrong in my opinion

what's next, adult skins without the proper parts?

Same reason as why you'd make an adult "ken and barbie" skin.
Um, yes?