So why are kids on Zindra?

eww

Next you'll tell me you found the pumpkin and the dead parrot! Very risque, Daniel!

I'd call it more like "spooky service tunnels" myself, cuz dungeons being a filtered word and all.

Yes I found the pumpkin (actually 2 or 3 different ones) and the dead parrot. I tried mouth-to-mouth, but it didn't work, so being neko, I tried to eat it just to find out it was made of plastics.

I know, hehe. But I'm not a scared little girl, I'm a brave teen and like the idea of exploring a dungeon. j/k

How would banning child avs change this situation?

You weren't looking, so you wouldn't have done anything when the child av first showed up. Someone else did see something and file an AR - but there won't always be someone else, and that other person could have been distracted, too, until the offending avs started going at it. Or maybe they were, but by the time they got a good screen capture, that's what the avs were doing.

Unlike adult verification or payment information, there's no way to automatically detect child avs. (Using avatar height makes adult verification look reliable.) So you're still dependent on somebody manually filing an AR.

So what's the difference? One is that someone could have filed an AR before they started going at it. But you don't need a LL rule to do that - the parcel owner can ban/eject people for whatever reason.

The other is the way the person handling the AR would react. They could no longer blame the parcel owner at all - but again, you don't need a region-wide rule for that. Presumably having the new "no child av" policy on this parcel will protect them.

This leaves the way the AR person handled your situation. I suppose one could argue that with the "no child av" rule, then that person wouldn't have interrogated you. But, and this is the big point, they had NO BUSINESS accusing you of anything in the first place.

My conclusion: Some people are pushing for the no-child-av rule to avoid being victims of abuse reports that are mishandled. That's a cop out. Fix the problem with the way abuse reports are handled. As with many RL laws, we don't need more of them, we need to improve the way current rules/laws are enforced.

oh you should really take a long bow for this one

/me Claps like the wind

Wow, I consider that one a tame series LOL. I'm actually surprised that Kodomo no Omocha finally made it here, great series.

How exactly can child avatars be banned, anyway, when all people have to do is make their av shorter, and use most freebie skins and voila - a child av, at least a crude visual representation.

So to ban all child av you'd pretty much have to make all avs adult height and disable modifyable shapes. (Which obviously is not going to happen.) People can change shapes in a flash, y'know?

Don't forget about "Barely legal". =^-^=

I been following Yubisaki Milk Tea a lot lately. (^_^)y

Just depends on the law you look at. I am sure there are some that say virtual depictions are illegal while this ruling states that it is legal:

"In 2008 in United States v. Williams, the Supreme Court upheld a challenge to the constitutionality of section 2252A(a)(3). While the court dealt primarily with the issue of offering images of real children, the court nevertheless stated that "an offer to provide or request to receive virtual child pornography is not prohibited by the statute. A crime is committed only when the speaker believes or intends the listener to believe that the subject of the proposed transaction depicts real children... Simulated child pornography will be as available as ever, so long as it is offered and sought as such, and not as real child pornography.""

Our laws are fluid and dynamic and this is why we have the Supreme Court. The system does mostly work but unfortunately it is rare to come across a clear cut case of black and white. Grays are the dominant color.

I mentioned in an earlier post that if everyone really wanted their minds blown we could move the Forums to the Hongfire forum which I frequent. Great discussions of all aspects of Anime and Magna PLUS one hell of a lot more. Several threads I do not even peek into

This makes sense to me. Although I have no personal interest in sexual ageplay, I have never understood why it is prohibited under certain jurisdictions whereas it is perfectly unremarkable (in the judicial sense) to put firearms in the hands of a virtual child or to even slaughter one.

Love your sig!

I'll agree with that. You won't find me shagging in the infohub there lol.




My point from earlier right there.. Child AV's now have the extra ability, due to the sexual ageplay rules, to "take someone down with them", intentional or not. There's 2 sides to this.. and you make a great point about it. It's given that sex + kiddies = no good. PG WILL be the ageplayers safe zone.. sanitized by LL, yet there's arguement that adult should NOT be the sexplayers safe zone.




On adult land? Those kind of AR's would then never be a legitimate risk. At most it's an issue of errant AR's.. the Linden that I dealt with did a thorough job and was fair enough about it to cover HIS OWN ass! I should expect no less ffs.

It's not a cop out to remind people that ageplayers ALREADY HAVE their own sex-free area, where they KNOW that sex is banned.. it's called PG land, and theres a TON of it. Now tell me how, in light of that fact, it's considered anything less than *ABSOLUTELY FAIR* for the sexplayers to have adult sims give them the same "mostly worry free" protections from the sexual ageplay rule. I didn't see the kiddies uprooted and cast off to a small corner of the grid, now did I? No, I'm hearing they should be allowed free access to everything rated Adult too, and to hell with anyone that puts at risk. No offence, but screw that! Their right to depict someone underage has no more weight or importance than an adults right to behave like an adult without them being a concern. The sexual ageplay rule is dangerous on BOTH sides, not just the kiddies side.

Spot on, it's not about the child avs, it's about a proper AR process.

I opened a string on the AR review process for this very reason, fraudulent or vigilante AR's, but it died off. I would like to see mute and ban work a lot more efficiently for the user, currently people can just make a new av to get around both of those. I think it would be protective in many ways against age players and vigilantes if one could ban/mute their whole account.

I'm also pretty sure people would be safe from a fraudulent age play AR's if they had stated in their profile and land parcel they didn't want kids or age play, also to say clearly in local chat that they aren't welcome.

But there is still the Dana's point of just being in the wrong place at the wrong time and just not seeing something on the screen. You'd think if there was no logs of one engaging with the child av it'd be ok.

Child avs are r/l adults, they too are to be held responsible, also they pay for their SL as we do and are not against the ToS, they have every right to live their SL as we do

Banning child avs or restricting them is strike one to censorship and not the way to go. Vigilante types on here have clearly stated they want bans or controls on other adult concepts. BDSM, beastiality and violence etc.

So banning child avs will then lead to looking over the shoulder for bdsm or what ever offends this agenda. It won't stop.

We need to care for freedoms, get a good process in place and not run in fear of an agenda.

Oh Christ, thank f@ck someone got what I'm trying to say. (Although I think you're missing a 'no' between "there's" and "arguement".)

Can I go now?

Yeh, but they always have had and so does any av character who puts a bit of thought and effort into messing with someone.

Trust you!

What's that supposed to mean after thirty-odd pages of these shenanigans?

lol, I', just saying let's keep peoples freedom and sort the AR process instead.

Ian.

The AR process is for whinging ...

Depending on where you live ...

This.

Is.

Serious.

RL.

Sh!t.

That's one of the best explanations I've seen. Courtesy and Respect and use of Common Sense about this by a child av would go a long way.....it's a two way street.

So yeah....



There are quite a few who totally get it.....just don't have the energy to debate it for 500 pages. If you can't explain courtesy and respect and common sense on a reciprocal level in 2 pages....it won't happen in 50 pages.

I think this is where the Lindens might have done us all a favour and straightened the matter out once and for all. However they didn't - even after extensive debate since early spring - and the only thing this 'Adult' continent means, as far as I am concerned, is that a good number of residents will have to move and the upper echelon of landbarons get to set out their rapidly emptying Mainlaind wares on the MOTD.

You just have to shake your head.

You're making an argument that there should be areas where kid toons can't go. You haven't made an argument that it must be all of Zindra, or all adult-rated sims, because it can't be. Because there's hundreds of people on the mainland, right now, who need to move their homes to Zindra... because Zindra is the only mainland available that matches their needs, who currently and legitimately have kid toons on other parts of their land. What do they do, pay double tier?

And there are already places kid toons can't go, like areas that are explicitly sexualized. Put a copy of "Dream of the Fisherman's Wife" on the wall and you're as safe as you'll ever be.

Oh for f@ck's sake, Argent. You get the picture. I know you do. Quit splitting hairs.

No hairs being split. Your argument is that child avatars can not go to adult land period! The reverse of that argument would be that adult verifieds can not go to PG land because they may spontaneously break out their sex pose balls, strip down and get it on. The same thought process could be extended to saying that you can go stand beside Marianne, strip down with your bit attached, snap a photo and AR her. One argument is as ludicrous as the other.