It already was submitted. It got merged with another post that sounds like it’s taking more of the approach that even local users should be clamped.
And yeah I understand it’s not gonna be a high-priority fix, but it is something I know certain groups are greatly negatively affected by. As someone who uses those types of scales, they actually work surprisingly well in worlds that accommodate them on purpose. Its really sad that worlds and experiences like that have been broken, especially as we had hoped that manually uploading avatars would still be allowed at any scale unless the world actively enforces it.
2 Likes
The new guidelines and oscquery are nice.
Will the custom colors let me do a proper light theme? It looks possible acco to the preview image
Since you’re adding color options for the Menu UI maybe you could add it for other UI like Nameplates?
Do the Color Palettes start with random colors? Cause it kinda looks like that in the video.
In my opinion it would be wayyy better to make it use the default colors. when you create a new one. That way you have a direct comparison between VRChat’s default contrast etc which would make it a lot easier to find a good color palette yourself.
Also, will the Action Menu also be effected by it?
Thank you for the far more understandable new community and creator guidelines! Speaking of the new guidelines, would it be possible in the future to have the vrchat client prevent you from accidentally joining a public space instance if your current avatar has any of the tags that relate to inflammatory content?
I have seen it happen a few times where someone accidentally brings an avatar inappropriate for a public space to a public space instance without realizing it. For example someone might log out in an avatar featuring inflammatory content and forgot to check when logging back in the next time they got on. An avatar might have two versions, one with and one without inflammatory content, and that difference can be very subtle and not noticed from first person view. It would be a nice feature if the avatar tags could help prevent this.
Also that OnAnimatorMove() fix is hilarious and the sort of jank I expect from unity.
I understand there was hesitance on having a writable parameter for scale, but is there future plans to add it? Because this broke the animation I’ve had on my avatar for years of turning into the hulk and I’d really like it back.
Technically, there’s nothing stopping you from doing something like this with Udon. Create a number of single person ‘entry’ rooms for a world where players will be spawned by themselves, let the instance master configure and choose from a pre-set list of consent notifications. If the player chooses to continue, teleport them to the ‘actual’ spawn point, and reset their respawn target. If they choose no, activate a world portal on top of them, pointed at their own homeworld.
1 Like
Some Accessible defaults would be nice too such as those modelled on Windows’ own theming High-Contrast options. 
Feel free to disregard. Was able to reproduce the behaviours I was referring to with constraints, but not specifically with Avatar Root Scaling. 
Keep up the good work, making a lot of good improvements to the platform! Also, that dude do be rotating!
Probably!
No plans, cool idea!
Dunno, still in dev. That’s why it has the big “NOT FINAL, IN DEVELOPMENT” in the corner. 
Don’t think so, just main menu UI. Might be wrong.
This goes like three or four layers past where we’re currently at but it’s a good idea for the future.
No plans right now.
I had assumed that the wording of the guidelines would inform the reader that this is a “get to it when you can, things aren’t really in place yet but you’ll save yourself some work later” vibe rather than a RULE WRITTEN IN THE STONE TABLETS but perhaps I need to reword it. 
No rules have changed, no enforcement has changed. You can behave exactly as you did before these guidelines were written and you’ll be fine.
Notably, statements made by team members (or even by me) do not overrule what we have written down anywhere.
1 Like
For the guidelines Vrchat should specify pornographic / nsfw content is not allowed for avatars and instance behavior. You do have it specified for video and image content, but not for the others. this will cause confusion with how things are currently worded. Under avatars you have
“Private avatars may contain some of this content (controversial, sensitive, intimate, provocative, extreme horror) but they cannot be used in public spaces.”
With current wording intimate can be taken as allowing such content as long as its not public.
Same for Instance behavior where
“Certain portions of the “inflammatory behavior” guideline may not apply in Private instances as long as everyone present consents.”
If Vrchat does not want pornographic / nsfw content uploaded it should be specified. Unless with the new tag system it will be allowed as long as its tagged appropriately.
The wording used in those cases was chosen extremely specifically, meaningfully, and intentionally! They mean precisely what they read as.
3 Likes
you may have stuff on the avatar, you may use it with consent in private.
it should not be visible by reading the title or looking at the Avatar picture and you should not be able to randomly stumble into the situation.
so private avatar, with SFW Description and sfw picture in invite/invite+ instances.
1 Like
thats where TOS is not the guidelines.
tos says: no you may not at all.
the guidline speaks the practical enforcements: if nothing points to it and nobody has a reason to report you for it, then they wont hunt you down.
as soon as somebody reports you or it is publicly visible you basically had to break the guidelines at some point.
1 Like
And that confusion is why they should specify. People are going to think its ok as long as its not visible or people consent to it.
Its still breaking the law even if others don’t see it or don’t tell.
The new Guidelines is very helpful indeed, a lot of conversations swept across the verse and people seemed to make sense of everything and agree on it’s meaning very quickly. This is a very good sign!
One question has popped up a lot, and had me very curious, is the part that talks about future tagging. That makes it sound like a teaser for filtering features! — Fingers crossed for the future. This kind of thing seems like very important social function, and if you ask me should be fairly high on the priority list. Having means of filtering stuff could solve many problems (and existing PR nightmares) in one go; and if it can be kept vague enough in labelling, it can also avoid too much PR-type repercussions under the “how dare you allow this content” flavour of woke scrutiny.
VRC+ already has the UI themes (imo thy should be able to customize it with local file images and such if they want)
Give non-VRC+ people the ability to recolour the menu and make it easier to see and more pleasant on the eyes!! Many things get lost in the endless voids of teal.
Also it should live update at least in an example inside the menu.
Have it recolour the loading screen too???
I mean, a lot of this could be circumvented by adding a little transparency during development: like saying “currently we are having difficulties preventing existing avatar transform scalers from breaking stuff when the native scaling is used”. Then people can even submit their ideas for solutions potentially (and doing so without it looking like begging for help). You obviously don’t need to leak code, but just like generally describing the problem and approaches to solution. This is why maintaining something like a Trello for development progress on various features would be great, because then notes for current status could be applied.
Also having preliminary look-overs and then publicly announcing prospects on a particular feature, potential pros and cons, as well as potential complications for it and why it is or isn’t being worked on at that moment.
2 Likes
You must be fun at parties. The guidelines are about practicalities and enforcement and how to conduct yourself on VRChat. They know what people tend to get up to in private situations and just want to make sure those situations stay private. There’s no practical way to scan every avatar for bits so if you don’t get reported then they don’t know. If a tree falls in the forest it didn’t fall until someone observed it.
Oh geez, this just made me think of how weird it’ll be not to have a teal UI. It’s been teal even since I started way back in 2015.
edit: this reminds me to check the canny for a classic vrchat starfield menu theme
3 Likes
I’m inclined to agree that the current iteration of guidelines leaves certain kinds of content in a rather wide gray area (while being crystal clear about others), and I can make a few guesses at why it’s intentionally done like that.
With that said, there’s a few followup questions:
- The guidelines specify only actual public instances as Public. Previously, public bans would prevent people from joining friends+ instances. Is the enforcement changing there, or is there a better label for that type of ban?
- The TOS point 9.4.c prohibits, among other things, content that is “objectionable, …, embarrassing, …, or otherwise inappropriate” as judged by “a reasonable person”. The guidelines seemingly list some of those categories as “inflammatory behavior”, and proceed to permit them in Private instances with consent of participants. As seen by the discussion above, this is rather confusing. Should these points in the guidelines be read as an informal promise (or any other even-less-binding word you’d choose) of non-enforcement of this point unless the guidelines are violated? (in general, the TOS point is extremely loaded and wide - what culture does said reasonable person come from? Which amounts of visible skin would they consider embarrassing or inappropriate? What if their culture considers certain foods or acts to be objectionable? Par for the course for legalese to maximize coverage, but doesn’t make it any better when it just confuses people.)
- This plays into the older statements made alongside the lines of “you’re fine unless reported as we don’t have the ability to proactively moderate private instances”. Is this still the general spirit here, for content not explicitly listed as fully prohibited in the guidelines?
- Are the tags available in the current SDK somewhat representative of future ones, or a subset of them? It was implied that it doesn’t hurt to start applying current ones.
- With how flexible Avatars 3.0 are, certain content tags may only apply only if certain toggles are active. I understand that the entire tagging system is in the far future, but would it make sense to provide a state behavior to dynamically update content tags depending on the actual state of the avatar? Perhaps some other system to achieve the same goal, like tagging individual action menu items?
2 Likes
Still does not mean its ok in the rules.
I want to make sure people do not have a false perception of the rules. I know there is no active enforcement which adds to people thinking its ok. I think they didn’t specify cause they know what some people are doing in private.