So why are kids on Zindra?

Yes, but it was the idea that a child av could plant themselves anywhere and be a potential liability for other people - just because they are there.

This is what it would seem the vast majority of residents do not get: the presence of a quite innocent ageplayer in an 'Adult' sim could be extremely problematic in the same way that a naked cockwalker just standing in a 'PG' sim would be highly compromising to everyone in the vicinity.

Sexual activity is permitted on a mature sim - you just can't advertise or publicise it. Nudity however is not only permitted on a mature sim but you can also advertise it (Blondin has stated a number of times that a nudist beach would be mature not adult). As such, an innocent ageplayer in a Mature sim would be equally problematic on a mature sim.

On the other hand, if the Adult sim was a shop selling photo-realistic (but non-pornographic) horror/violent artwork (which would almost certainly be classed as Adult under the current definition), there would be no intrinsic reason why a child avatar visiting would be a problem - indeed a child avatar could even own a shop selling photo-realistic (but non-pornographic) horror/violent artwork - which would be a case where a child avatar might need to relocate to Zindra!

Matthew

Okay, I admit: I don't get it. Say I'm in a PG sim and a naked "anatomically enhanced" guy stands next to me. How am I highly compromised?

Seems to me that the folks worrying about child avatars appearing next to their seXXors at least have a more plausible concern about getting swept up in some crusading prude's AR and banned by some clueless G-Team member. I think it's just misguided to think that the Adult region maturity rating is much related to that likelihood, but there are people with a lot of money riding on that being the case. Some own lots of Mature Mainland. Some are big-name smut peddlers. I can't say whether that's just contaminating their expectations for Adult land, or if they're actively trying to shape it to their own purposes.

With all due respect, I have read everything I could find about the 'Adult' continent, including all threads on these forums that have even touched on the subject and my opinion is that this ridiculously ill-judged classification system lacks common sense.

The 'guidelines' on appropriate and inappropriate behaviour, such as they are, are just so much bullsh!t designed to cover the Lindens' asses like a good deal of the TOS, which is fair enough in my opinion. After that, most anything serious that goes down in-world will be settled through RL channels and this nonsense about what does and does not constitute an infringement of 'Adult' guidelines will matter not one whit.


You might very well be a parent or guardian sitting at the PC with a minor you do not want to have to explain the scene to, which of course is why you probably chose to frequent 'PG' sims in the first place. You might have chosen a 'PG' classified region because you just do not want to see things like this yourself. You might be an educationalist or a corporate sponsor discussing a project with your colleagues in a meeting and you certainly will not want to be embarrassed by any such thing happening.

In the same way, you may be a consenting adult who enjoys an 'anything goes' atmosphere so you chose to live in an 'Adult' sim. In which case you will not want to be doing whatever with a pal while unbeknown to you, an ageplaying Pollyanna has turned up in the vicinity. At best that scenario is a wet blanket (just as inconsiderate and every bit as unwholesome as a cockwalker in a 'PG' sim, in my opinion), at worst, someone may have taken a screenshot and the reasons why ageplayers in 'Adult' sims are a bad idea will likely become abundantly clear.

Geddit now?

An "Adult" sim is just a "Mature" sim now that "Mature" has been nerfed. Every objection you have to a child avatar in an "Adult" sim applies to a child avatar in a "Mature" sim.

Are you really saying that kid toons should be restricted to PG, because that's the only alternative I see?

An "Adult" sim is just a "Mature" sim now that "Mature" has been nerfed. Every objection you have to a child avatar in an "Adult" sim applies to a child avatar in a "Mature" sim.

Are you really saying that kid toons should be restricted to PG, because that's the only alternative I see?
The people you're arguing with agree with you on that. The system lacks common sense. The system, however, is what we have to work with... if your sim is mature, now, even if you have NO adult content currently... the only way to retain the same rights you currently have are to make it "adult". There's no other option. Therefore "Adult" isn't "Porn", it's "The new Mature".

At least I do understand what you meant by "compromised" in a PG sim, and yeah, that's a problem that limits certain uses of Second Life such as the cited parental/educational/corporate examples. So the only viable response now and in future is to AR the offending party and hope Governance does something sensible.

I was assuming that this was the intent of the post: that barring child avatars from Adult sims would discourage bad outcomes, similarly to barring "cockwalkers" from PG sims. It's difficult to discuss that without pulling on all the loose threads of the Adult Content policy, which would be painfully redundant here. But as long as the current policy is what it is, it's only consistent with that policy that child avatars can be on what's defined as "Adult" land.

If the argument is that the whole policy needs to be reworked, including prohibiting child avatars from violent roleplay, then that's a much broader discussion. I'm not at all sure that "child avatar virtual violence" would qualify as "broadly offensive." But I'm surely not the one to ask because I find all virtual violence offensive, with or without child avatars involved.

I'll give up my Chobits collection when they pry it from my cold dead hands!

How about just keeping corporate/college regions behind their own firewall and in their own grid not accessible by Mr. Random Noob with his freenis?

That's shaky ground that even I would rarely tread on. If I were to visit that place, I would at least make an effort of referring to myself as "Barely Legal" or something of the sort. And, if kid AVs showed up, I'd let them know about the potential risk of putting themselves in proximity to scripted items while in a public setting like that. All in consideration that it is known that sex is provided for. Even more so if "sex" is used as a search term. (>_<

You won't see me disagree with you that kid AVs need to stay out of sex places. That's the rule as it stands. But, (Adult) isn't always sex as shown be the already existing infohub on the river in Zindra. (^_^)

I sincerely believe the 'hidden lines' of the TOS/CS are ruining SL. Frankly, I still maintain the unpopular opinion that these rules need to go the way of 8-track tape. I'd sooner prefer to see sim access based on RL country so that local laws can be adhered to without restricting the rest of the world to what ever narrowing definitions come up in order to homogenize the place. (T_T)

Heh... It almost got pulled from the shelves in the first week because Chii was described as being 16 years old in appearance, was depicted nude, had a number of scenes where she imitated poses from porn magazines and videos, and got involved in a live webcam strip feed with suggestions of masturbation. Still on the shelves, to this day. And a marvelous story, really. I still marathon the Manga and DVD set once in a while. (^_^)y

I guess it boils down to the question of "Why an 'Adult' sim?" and can we just get it straight that I understand the point you make about 'Mature' sims being no different to 'Adult' sims in this respect? However, putting other questions about the true rationale for this third 'Adult' classification aside, I would have thought this a good opportunity for the Lindens to at least lay down some clear rules about the matter of ageplay and sexplay within SL.

I understand that a big part of ageplay is about mixing with adults. Ageplaying residents have SL 'families' and I am not suggesting that they have to set up as The Brady Bunch on a 'PG' sim. My thinking is that, for what they are worth, the 'Mature' guidelines should have been sufficient to the purpose of ageplayers.

I can even envisage 'Mature' working for the level of ageplay Lindal Kidd posted about quite early in this thread: "The Child Growing Up in Difficult Circumstances" although f@ck knows what she would suggest could be done with child prostitution, sexual abuse and all them other things children who grow up in difficult circumstances tend to face. I guess arming ageplayers for war and maybe throwing in a bit of torture on the side would be ok because it seems none of the pundits or ambulance chasing lawyers give a sh!t about anything to do with kids in SL but sex.

My basic thinking about the 'Adult' classification is that, given the thing has been foisted on us and given the consternation and controversy regarding sexual ageplay in SL, this would have been a good opportunity to create a part of SL where sexplayers would be free of the very question of ageplayers - in exactly the same way that residents of 'PG' sims should be free of sexplayers and a plethora of other stuff they don't want to see in SL.

I see no good reason why ageplayers - regardless of the fact they do not engage in sexual ageplay - should not be obliged to shoulder as much responsibility as sexplayers in the face of all that controversy and quite a bit of heavy litigation surrounding sex and child avatars in SL and keep out of areas designated 'Adult'.


We had a short barney about this yesterday when I suggested we had black and white and a grey area in between. but, for the record, I can understand that as it stands 'Adult' is just another pointless version of 'Mature' with a few marketing bells tied on it to force a land rush but my point is that it should at least have offered that much more.


Oh come on! You see no point in commenting when the system is plainly wrong? Of course you don't.

ive just been to Zindra and there it's just water no land at all

There is more, if you visit the places that are named in the blog. Because of all the stink, I decided to have a look myself, and I explored the "dungeons" of one of the big dams. I found some cool free-to-copy stuff that will be useful on next Halloween, like a coffee pot with a dead spider... Very adult!

Daniel - I couldn't find those dams or freebies. SLurl by any chance?

Hm, that dam with the "dungeon" was here if I remember correctly:

http://slurl.com/secondlife/Pengallen%20Bridge/200/240/38

There is a hole in the ground with a ladder in it somewhere.

Thing is that, no 'Adult' most certainly isn't always about sex, but this is the one area where most people can actually *see* glaring issues about children mixing with adults in the 'wrong' way. So on the one hand it's kind of moot for us to keep expressing that point but, on the other hand, we keep coming back to it because, frankly, sex is the only lifestyle issue that grabs much attention in SL.

Ooh COOL. Thank you so much, Daniel.

Also, fictional depiction of children and violence is not illegal in most countries, and you can find countless examples in literature (Lord of the Flies) and film (Resident Evil, Resident Evil 2, 13 Ghosts etc.).



As things currently stand now, an area designated as Adult does not mean that it *will* contain sexual content/activity. All that being designated Adult means is that they are *may* advertise sexual content/activity and *may* advertise violent content/activity. It doesn't have to contain either. An area designated as Mature *may* also contain sexual content or violent content but it *must* not advertise that.

As such there is no reason a child avatar shouldn't visit an Adult flagged region just because it is flagged Adult, any more than they shouldn't visit a Mature region on the basis of it being flagged Mature.

On there other hand, if a region (irrespective of whether it is flagged Adult, Mature or even PG; whether it is on Zindra or mainland) is clearly going to contain sexual activities/content on the basis of its name or description, then, I agree, a responsible ageplayer should keep out of that area. And indeed, most responsible ageplayers would avoid going to a place advertising as a sex club etc.

In this sense, LL's proposal is ridiculous, as under the status quo it is normally quite obvious from an area's name and description what sort of content you will encounter; those acting responsible (whether they are a child avatar or a Gor RPer or whatever) tend to avoid places where their presence is clearly inappropriate (or at least change avatars/outfits); SL TP/Logon/Region Crossing glitches will still throw people into inappropriate places and griefers will be griefers regardless of the new changes.

If you think through LL's proposals that sexual activity is permitted in private on mature land but not adertised openly, then logically, there is a stronger case that child avatars be banned from Mature land and only permitted on Adult and PG land, since an Adult region can be explicit about whether it contains sexual content (and so it is easy for the child avatar to avoid), whereas a Mature region can't be so explicit so it is more likely for a child avatar to accidently encounter sexual content!

Matthew

P.S. ironically, my RL avatar has just been invited to a "Kids in Games & Virtual Social Spaces Forum"

Marketing.

I disagree. It should not have been done at all.

We went through that back in March. Linden Labs rolled over us. Now it's down to "how can we deal with what's there".

Duh.


Glad we got that cleared up.


I guess Blue Mars is looking better all the time.

Where they don't let you so much as wear female clothes if you have a male avatar?

"Oh man, Second Life has a cold."

"Better switch to a system that's got e-bola instead!"

Ephraim Kappler roars laughing

To the OP, because that's what all the cool kids are doing!