The ageplay policy clarification list contains inapropriate items that need their own category.
PixelPrinces Resident
The avatar appearance and content creation parts of the policy are coherent and makes sense, the child safety commitment part however is not. It is out of place and is conflating ageplay with things of real legal significance (like human trafficking) and other stuff that have nothing to do with ageplay or even child safety for that matter, this is inappropriate and should be revisited and maybe separated into its own category or made part of a more serious real life legal stuff category the same way you handle other legal issues.
It also does nothing for child safety when people's attention and resources are tied up by micromanaging what 2 grown consenting adults say to each other while wearing this or that avatar. It should not be of LL's concern as long as: 1. No ageplay is being done, 2. No laws are being broken or 3. No actual minors being involved. Otherwise this overreach creates an atmosphere of unease within community about who reports you for what and how the person reviewing the report may interpret it.
Log In
prissypaw Aldrin
the term ageplay is incorrect for what they are going after, i agree that the ageplay policy and the rules on user age limit are not one and the same, however the real defenition of age play is "any one role playing an age older or younger usualy younger than their real age." so by continuing to missuse this label you are doing harm to many communities not the ones linden labs is targeting, having a toddler avatar engage with an adult is child porn and is illegal in many locations which is what this is all about, and it isn't just toddler avatars though since any one role playing under the age of 18 is considered a child.