So why are kids on Zindra?

And that they block other people in other parts of Zindra from entering...
- What's to stop a set of naked avatars from entering that area; since it is in the adult continent, and getting it on?
- And would it be fair to AR them for doing so, given that they are in Zindra?

From what I understand - LL was forced into making Zindra when a Senator bullied by a parent advocacy group threatened to make Philip's life a living hell.

I believe my snowball can weather the heat quite well.

.

What's to stop that happening on mainland outside of Zindra?




If it the parcel flags have been set for that area as PG or if the description (or signs on the land) is clear that sexual behaviour is not permitted by the landowner, then yes, it is permissable to AR them whether they are on existing mainland, Zindra or a private sim! (It would also be permissable for the landowner to eject and ban them).

Matthew

What's to stop that happening on mainland outside of Zindra?




If it the parcel flags have been set for that area as PG or if it the description (or signs on the land) is clear that sexual behaviour is not permitted by the landowner, then yes, it is permissable to AR them whether they are on existing mainland, Zindra or a private sim! (It would also be permissable for the landowner to eject and ban them).

Matthew

Really? Whose parents? I don't think my mom was in that group.......seriously though, 'whose' parents? If everyone is SL is over 18, why are anyone's parents getting up in arms? What's the objection to grown folks doing whatever grown folks want to do?

They'd have to sdrawkcab klat when writing up the AR?

I call shenanigans.

Why not, since merely allowing sexual content doesn't mean there's sexual activities going on when the child avatar is present?

i call shotgun!

As a matter of interest, what would a blanket ban of child avatars from all of Zindra actually achieve?

You can't automatically block a child avatar from entering Zindra.

So all you could do would be to AR someone if you saw a child avatar on Zindra (and was sure that they really were a child avatar rather than a short avatar). Which isn't much different from the current situation - namely that you can AR a child avatar if they are engaging in sexual activity.

Matthew

Didn't you get the memo Matthew? Logic is NOT allowed!

Lets look at that again...

1. Would it be -fair- to AR them? If Zindra is the adult continent after all.

2. As Zindra is the adult continent, is walking around as a nude, possibly sexually active avatar, acceptable unless the parcel you enter -clearly- states / flags otherwise? Ie: Is it the 'default' for Zindra for adult activity to be acceptable?

Schadenfreude.

Lolita? Great book but even Nabokov got flak for it when he published and I still don't understand why a 'Mature' classification isn't sufficient to the purpose of your argument.


I have to say that I agree here.

Only last week I learned that, yeah, sexbeds and such were tolerated on 'PG' land and there was me thinking like a dumb lug all along that 'Mature' was meant expressly to accommodate that kind of thing.

Now we have this new 'Adult' classification and, despite all the shenanigans over ageplay and child avs in SL, it's still ok for account holders to wander around as 'yowens' in these newly rezzed dens of licentiousness and iniquity?

I love Lindal's argument about "The Child Growing Up in Difficult Circumstances" but where did Dickens describe how little Oliver walked in on Nancy sitting on Bill's face? Even Humble Hamburger was delicate about his abuse of Dolores.

'Mature' ought to be sufficient to the needs of any adventurous adult wishing to explore their inner child in a den of danger and debauchery but, really, it's stretching the bounds of common sense to argue that a child av in an 'Adult' sim would be any less a wet blanket (and very possible grounds for litigation) than my foul-mouthed Dalek avatar would be in a wild west sim.


Sadly, I have to agree but you could have saved Angel the trouble without quibbling in your first post. Her meaning was perfectly plain from the outset.


On the contrary, the entire argument is quite apt since the whole premise of the 'Adult' classification appears to be superfluous. I don't think it is unrealistic to expect that 'Adult' sims are not going to be saturated with an influx of child avs run by account holders who are:

a] pervs thinking they have carte blanche to play pixellated 'doctors & nurses' with Uncle Lumpylap;

b] griefers intending to rez as much fuss as possible by means of their under-age avatar;

c] pig-headed nuisances insisting they have the right to go where they please or

d] all of the above.


Or at least until Blue mars opens. If the building restrictions don't draw residents away this dilatory nonsense will.


You're jumping to conclusions again, Ian. The OP expressed no animosity towards child avs. Her point is really very clearly and simply about where the line is to be drawn about the participation of child avs in SL.

In case it escaped your notice, the depiction of child avatars in any kindof sexual situation - even as a spectator - is a legal meltdown and it isn't enough for an account holder to say "I was jest bowlin down th' street on my bisickle while 1234BlowMe Jenkins was playin that horsie's trombone".

If we are to abide by classification systems, 'Adult' ought to mean 'Adult' otherwise the whole system should be dumped and it should be accepted, as a matter of course, that we are all above the age of majority and account holders should be free to do as they please, which is my preferred option given we're only talking about pixels ferchrissakes.


Zackly. And in the eyes of the press, it won't matter the child av watching 1234Blowme Jenkins demonstrate his equestrian skills was an adult either.

Will there be no end to this bullsh!t?

Will there be no end to this post!?

Lolita? Great book but even Nabokov got flak for it when he published and I still don't understand why a 'Mature' classification isn't sufficient to the purpose of your argument.


I have to say that I agree here.

Only last week I learned that, yeah, sexbeds and such were tolerated on 'PG' land and there was me thinking like a dumb lug all along that 'Mature' was meant expressly to accommodate that kind of thing.

Now we have this new 'Adult' classification and, despite all the shenanigans over ageplay and child avs in SL, it's still ok for account holders to wander around as 'yowens' in these newly rezzed dens of licentiousness and iniquity?

I love Lindal's argument about "The Child Growing Up in Difficult Circumstances" but where did Dickens describe how little Oliver walked in on Nancy sitting on Bill's face? Even Humble Hamburger was delicate about his abuse of Dolores.

'Mature' ought to be sufficient to the needs of any adventurous adult wishing to explore their inner child in a den of danger and debauchery but, really, it's stretching the bounds of common sense to argue that a child av in an 'Adult' sim would be any less a wet blanket (and very possible grounds for litigation) than my foul-mouthed Dalek avatar would be in a wild west sim.


Sadly, I have to agree but you could have saved Angel the trouble without quibbling in your first post. Her meaning was perfectly plain from the outset.


On the contrary, the entire argument is quite apt since the whole premise of the 'Adult' classification appears to be superfluous. I don't think it is unrealistic to expect that 'Adult' sims are not going to be saturated with an influx of child avs run by account holders who are:

a] pervs thinking they have carte blanche to play pixellated 'doctors & nurses' with Uncle Lumpylap;

b] griefers intending to rez as much fuss as possible by means of their under-age avatar;

c] pig-headed nuisances insisting they have the right to go where they please or

d] all of the above.


Or at least until Blue mars opens. If the building restrictions don't draw residents away this dilatory nonsense will.


You're jumping to conclusions again, Ian. The OP expressed no animosity towards child avs. Her point is really very clearly and simply about where the line is to be drawn about the participation of child avs in SL.

In case it escaped your notice, the depiction of child avatars in any kindof sexual situation - even as a spectator - is a legal meltdown and it isn't enough for an account holder to say "I was jest bowlin down th' street on my bisickle while 1234BlowMe Jenkins was playin that horsie's trombone".

If we are to abide by classification systems, 'Adult' ought to mean 'Adult' otherwise the whole system should be dumped and it should be accepted, as a matter of course, that we are all above the age of majority and account holders should be free to do as they please, which is my preferred option given we're only talking about pixels ferchrissakes.


Zackly. And in the eyes of the press, it won't matter the child av watching 1234Blowme Jenkins demonstrate his equestrian skills was an adult either.

Will there be no end to this bullsh!t?

Will there be no end to this post!?

/me looks into his crystal ball . . .

Headline News 1 July 2009: "Virtual World Opens Adults Only Sex Filled Continent".

Headline News 2 July 2009: "Underage Avatars Found in Adult Only Sex Filled Continent".

Headline News 3 July 2009: "Virtual World Bans Underage Avatars from Adult Only Sex Filled Continent".

Pep (Whatever the current beliefs are, it will take just one public expose - accurate or otherwise - and "kids" will be banned from Zindra.)

Oi, what's with the "again" ?

We have enough powers to not encourage or engage in child avi r/p, via our parcel rights and profiles and the simple right to say no and the ToS itself. No one can be forced into it. They don't need to be banned. This has already been explained over and over to the op and other ops.

Why continue with it when it has been clearly explained many times, if not to stir up problems for what ever adult concept is in the doghouse this week.

You think? I guess I gave her too much credit... I assumed since she's been on for a while and posting in so many threads she was plugged in to the whole sorry mess and so knew that Zindra was a farce.

But looking at her posting history now she seems to have missed just about every single thread on the subject back to February. Really quite remarkable, given how many there are.

Edit: and looking at my first post on this thread again, I'd still make that same post. "It's not [for the sexx0rs]" isn't "quibbling", it's exactly the point.

bottom line in LL is allowing child avatars on Zindra. take it up with them if you don't like it.

And that's the problem: Mature is the new Nowhere. It's neither fish nor foul. There's a whole class of activities that are permitted in Second Life that will now be forbidden on Mature land--yet it won't have the restrictions that make PG attractive for more chaste pursuits. It is quite frankly worthless, and it won't take long for that to be reflected in the market.

One of the most vocal blogging advocates of restricting Adult land by banning child avatars is also one of the largest (perhaps *the* largest?) owner of not-for-sale Mature mainland. Now why might that be?

I have to disagree. There is only one specific thing that isn't allowed on Mature land, and that is *advertising* adult activities. You can still pull out the *insert your kinkiest item here*, and go to town with it in mature land, as long as it's in your private home. Mature land still has a lot of value.

Gee, Mari. I shouldn't have joked in IM last night about how you guys shouldn't be there. It never occurred to me that some people really would take it seriously.

I think now I'll have to go there in puppy form. I wonder if I would be accused of not only prepubescent age play but beastiality as well.

Folks -- here's a newsflash. There is real world human trafficking going on everywhere (including California we are told) for you to be concerned about. Why are you worrying about cartoons?! Get your priorities straight please.

Thats not fair Argent. You and a few others have either implied or said outright that I am anti child toon or am trying to infringe on the rights of their players. It is simply not true.

I have no issue with child toons being on the grid as long as they are not used to create portrayals of child pornography. That's it. I like them otherwise, they're cute. Now if LL wants to create a specific Red Light district where everyone can have their junk out and hump things then I feel child toons should not be there. If the player of that child toon wants to go then he/she should simply change toons.

I believe the vast majority of residents in SL are adults and whether they play a child, a monkey, or a cup of tea they should all have equal rights up to the line of the law and common morality.

I've been in SL so long and anytime I mention to anyone in RL that I play SL they tell me about some article they read about how we're all perverts. I am a pervert, my friends know this. What they don't know and what I always tell them is that within SL I have met the biggest and most extreme personalities, amazing artists, hell the most intelligent people I've ever met were from SL. Then their eyes glaze over and they make another crack about my perverted game. lolzyeahthanx

Everything in this community is such a gray area. Everything. If LL said they were making the platform free for everyone and paying people to log-in with gold bricks, people would bitch. To me and pretty much every community in the world, depictions of children in sexually explicit scenes are offensive. Somehow in this community it is just another gray area.

Until you get tired of being harassed by vigilantes or knights errant or someone who wants your land, or a trigger happy Linden on the G team.

So what's the point of keeping on about it, now that it's clear that Zindra isn't "a specific Red Light district where everyone can have their junk out and hump things" any more than Mature is "a specific Red Light district where everyone can have their junk out and hump things"?