So why are kids on Zindra?

I don't know. If they say SW is not adult, yet soem of the other rp sims are, its hypocrisy.

Theres more violence in Star Wars comics and movies than in dystopian post apoc films.

One of the main rps I go to is Legacies, a dark rp sim. No consent is needed except on sexual violence (due to TOS). Dice rolls and stats influence major actions, and things can go bad. A good example is I did a good rp of a sacrificial ritual yesterday, succeeded in casting the spell (rolling dice), but when I rolled d100 for effectiveness- I got a 7. If that was the result when trying to avoid capture, I would have tripped into the net and made it -easier- for them, and they could do (almost) anything they wished and be admin enforced.

And as bad as that sounds, theres 1/10th of the violence as in Star Wars. If that much, yes violence is the reason many rp sims are being moved.

edit - ah Could, then they changed position from when I heard before. This is good. It irked me that an almost passive community was going to be rated adult but mega violent SW wasn't.

Still, Star Wars and Oliver Twist are perfect examples of children being around 'mature' activity, but not sexual. V.C. Andrews books.. don't really descriminate.

He'll probably hate me for agreeing with him, but . . . WHAT HE SAID

At the conclusion of Camus's Caligula, the about-to-be-assassinated Emperor realizes that, in a universe without rules, he has chosen "the wrong kind of freedom." The key point is that being able, or having the right to do something, does not afford you an ethical carte blanche to actually do it. It's a cliche, but with freedom comes responsibility.

What Dr. Kappler here says about the importance of exercising social responsibility as a kiddie avi could, and should be applied to all sorts of other activities. Being responsible and considerate of others is what a "civil society" is all about.

That is the crux of my problem with any form of censorship in RL or SL that is based on a premise of respect for children. Out of the entire gamut of adult concerns, what are we saying with this focus on sex at the expense of many equally valid concerns about what children should be exposed to?

Nevertheless we are all adults, for the time being at least, and I find the insistence of ageplayers on going wherever they please every bit as childish as those residents who want to get down to it on a PG parcel.


Basically [this regional classification system means that] ageplayers can go wherever they please [so long as they don't get involved in sexual ageplay] and sexplayers better watch their step [regardless of how the sim they are in is classified].

Ephraim Kappler roars laughing: someone is hankerin for a damn good spankerin!

Appreciate your generous clarification all the same.

Is there any violent RP without a sexual component that has been deemed Adult by any Lindens?

Old news. I told y'all this two months ago, and I've already sold my land.

i can't remeber it's the child avs in sexual situation that is forbidden or the child av in the vicinity of sexual related places?

i settled the problem easily on my private sim, since i get a copy of the ARs if you ar someone for something i do not agree to you get the ban hammer. My sim my rules, iu make them as i go but provided you aren't being an arse or a bigot, you risk nothing.

Are you implying that the people who don't see a problem with this are ageplayers?
That still reads like a nonsequiter to me.

The wording as I read it says that child avatars can’t be placed next to objects, not places. Within interpretation, a kid can sleep on a PG bed in their own bedroom while the parents’ room has fully functional sex furniture. As long as there are solid walls in between, the kid AV is not being depicted as being in place to promote or cater to (sexual)ageplay. So, a kid walking up an empty street riddled with sex clubs, while still an eyebrow raiser to many, is still within the letter of the guidelines placed upon us. (^_^)

Also, child avatar or not, a space filled with sex furniture can’t be decorated as if it is intended for children. Technically speaking; a sex den of oversized cribs and pink Hello Kitty wallpaper violates the rules as stated in the blog. Or, even playground swings could be restricted from places with adult content as is worded in the blog. So, if we’re going to pick at nits, why stop at child avatars? Swing sets, slides, rocker rides, merry-go-rounds, and many other devices would be required to be restricted from being placed in Adult land as they may be seen as creating an environment that welcomes kids to participate. (=_=)

https://blogs.secondlife.com/community/features/blog/2007/11/14/clarification-of-policy-disallowing-ageplay


As for child avatars and nudity or proximity to nudity, the exact wording is “sexualized graphics”. Nudity is not equal to sex. So, again, to the technical letter of the guidelines; child avatar nudity and proximity to nudity is a matter of context and weighted upon the situation at hand. Yes, the content does see opposition by an easily outraged few. But, until I see a direct Linden quote or further clarification in the TOS/CS/LL-Blog, I will stand by my interpretation of the rules presented to me. And, no, Wiki posts are not valid since anyone and everyone can inject their own agenda in the article. (=_=)

Also:
Short and cute does not always equate to young. (^_^)y

QFT

There were comments made to sim owners, about pending changes. LL backtracked a bit apparently.

I think instead of living by the LL TOS/CS you should check out the PROTECT Act of 2003, and of course the Miller test.

Done. Doesn't apply here. (^_^)y

and what makes you think that?

Dancing fully clothed with a cartoon polar bear in a virtual train station doesn't meet the Miller test.

Nope. Now can you tell the class what does?

Note that "ageplayers" in Second Life terms (different from RL terms, and specific to 'sexual ageplay" are wholly banned from the system. As such, they most certainly cannot "go wherever they please." Child avatars are afforded largely the same rights an privileges as other Second Life Residents, with exceptions, and also cannot "go wherever they please."

Oh I didn't realise this thread was serious...another debate about this?

I've said it all before so I will just say I'm a member of PROTECT.org and proudly so...and I betcha the changing laws/attitudes about all of this are a big reason behind the whole existence of Zindra in the first place. Even if for now it's about real life kids, not virtual ones.

In the end, LL is a company and has to protect itself legally and has to pay attention to (RL) public attitudes and laws. And I think it's shown it's done so in the past with the gambling and 'age play' bans.

I do puzzle at child avs being allowed on Zindra, but perhaps it's because not all land there will necessarily be 'sexualised'. The current Linden Lab TOS as I understand it says that child avs cannot be in a sexual sim or in proximity of a sexualised roleplay.

There are child avs in Tombstone which has a town bordello, but they are not allowed inside it, as far as I know.

I do not think child avs are anything bad in themselves. I do not think that a child av on Zindra is there for sex roleplay, necessarily.

No. Merely inconsiderate.

All three of the following must be true:

* Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
* Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law,
* Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. (This is also known as the (S)LAPS test- [Serious] Literary, Artistic, Political, Scientific.)

You're saying that people who don't see a problem with toon kids on adult sims are incosiderate.

Just people who don't see a problem with it?

Great cornswoggling hornytoads!

The realistic depiction of children in a sexualized environment meets those criteria.

then make sure YOU don't participate in that.

"Prohibits computer-generated child pornography when "B) such visual depiction is a computer image or computer-generated image that is, or appears virtually indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; (as amended by 1466A for Section 2256((B) of title 18, United States Code)"

Are the images produced by SL "virtually indistinguishable"? Yes, I know about the Whorley case, but that was decided in the 4th Circuit. A different circuit could decide totally different, then it would be up to the Supreme Court to decide. There is a very good chance that PROTECT could be struck down.

Provided you consider SL images realistic.