The Lord of the Flies - Child AVs and the Nursery Syndrome

Fortunately, Blue Mars does not have this problem...

Pat, Kat and Argent; in this big virtual world of ours there will be several people that do not share your opinion on things. Once your able to accept that fact and make your point without calling names and taking debated issues off topic - you will probably enjoy any forum much more than you do now. Try to take it easy.

It would benefit you to take me off ignore and actually read what I posted instead of assuming that what someone else quoted was part of some evil screed against you.

Sorry Argent, I didn't mean to cause a possible rant(?) against you by quoting you. I really couldn't remember why Lias was filtered.

I was tempted to remove it, but the reminder about the stalking kid avatars thing made me realize that there is nothing Lias could say that I would have any desire to see. Evil is evil.

It is one thing to not share the same opinion on things. It is quite another to force one's opinion on everybody else in the aggressive and unethical manner that you have. You would do well to take your own advice and accept the fact that: A. Child avatars exist; B. Child avatars are explicitly *approved* for use on the grid by Linden Labs; and C. That there are people who *support* the presence of child avatars on the grid.

I would say that you may enjoy the forum - and the grid - much more than you do now; but you seem to derive great joy from forcing your opinion on others.

Lias is clearly obsessed.

We all accepted AdFarmers existed - but we still made our concerns known to our service provider and to the community by discussing those concerns here in these forums. And that is a very well known way that change is effected here. Like it or not.

...
I know I am a bit of a deadhead ...

Adfarms were an abuse of resources and were a violation of community standards. Child avatars take up no more resources than an adult. What's your point?

A person has recently initiated an important topic in Forums. His thread is getting ungainly and awkward to read for many who are not sure where the original topic is coming from. I am initiating this thread not to "steal his thunder" but to continue what I consider to be a crucial discussion that has implications for many of us and - maybe - for the survival of SL itself as an arena of free expression and free choice. Please understand that I do NOT wish to offend anyone in this thread.

What do you REALLY believe "we" can gain from presenting ourselves as "children" and are child Avs compromising us with their presence?

Here is my "take" on this. I have been here long enough now that I think I can express soem serious and valid opinions.

Despite what people may protest here, I sincerely believe that the presence of child avs in the majority of adult situations or gatherings makes many of us uncomfortable in sl. As in reality, adult conversation is chilled and muted in the real sense of the word and a false chit-chat applied that we hear so often when kids are around. Wherever and whatever the situation, adults REALLY do censor themselves whenever a child is present and even when the animated image of a child is present we "gear down" and regard the adult-child as "suspicious".

To "play" the child restricts the player - I suggest a sense of distrust is immediately felt. After all, it's not regarded as a "fun" thing to do for the average adult to revert back to childhood behaviours and activites. People answer with "well, we're minotaurs, cats, dogs also" but that is somewhat different, isn't it?

We can NEVER be a dog or a Satyr so we create scenarios just as I do in my real work for the benefit of audience but we have all BEEN children. So we are NOT really "inventing" as a child but rememberng our own experiences and applying them. Or re-eetablishing what we never had or THINK we never had.

The presence of a child focusses each of us on our pasts or our immediate families and memories of the past. I don't encourage children to be in my real presence. Friends know that I have too may precious objects in my real environments for them to break! And they are "germ factories" that I must avoid if I am to work at what I do without interruption. In sl, I don't have much to say to children since I dont have much to say to children in reality except "Have a nice day" or "Wow, that looks like a great toy!"

There ARE laws which forbid specific interaction with children and animations of children. I wholeheartedly agree with them. In fact, I think they should be tougher. When we reject the child in our SL midst or if we vacate the SL party when a child appears, it is not that we don't like or respect children, it's that we feel we must acknowledge there are situations that could occur that the average av or person doesnt want to be involved in.

I will reiterate that I do not believe playing the "Fool" (as Shakespeare might see it) is a safe or wise thing to do. Many have felt offended that I previously wrote that my own childhood was "brilliant - it was, and I can't change that. Several have indicated that their's was awful. I am sorry for that. THAT simply confirms my opinion that parents should be licensed beofre they can have kids! I truly do not feel that playing out scenes here or anywhere else for that matter are really going to unwrap all the pyschoses and trauma-related issues that adults might feel in terms of their own pasts.

Playing at children is playing with fire. Read William Golding's "Lord of the Flies" instead. It's so much safer.

So comments please - do sl children make you uncomfortably aware of the importance of respecting real children by NOT playing with fire here? Or are they a "good thing" that I simply don't understand?

The solution to the problems in SL as highlighted by this thread can be solved by technology.

My point is that that is your opinion on adfarmers - and there are numerous threads where they did not agree with you. But you still had your right to state your opinion - as everyone should.

My point is that that is your opinion on adfarmers - and there are numerous threads where they did not agree with you. But you still had your right to state your opinion - as everyone should.

Back on track:

It is one thing to not share the same opinion on things. It is quite another to force one's opinion on everybody else in the aggressive and unethical manner that you have. You would do well to take your own advice and accept the fact that: A. Child avatars exist; B. Child avatars are explicitly *approved* for use on the grid by Linden Labs; and C. That there are people who *support* the presence of child avatars on the grid.

I think the reason why this issue comes up again is that some people in kid avatar appearance simply don't seem to know when to snap out of it, and realize that their role play is not welcome or appropriate.

By wearing a kid avatar at any time in combination with kids speak, gestures, giggling and generally kid like behavior mixed into settings where, if we were to take your role serious, you would have been sent right back to school or your parents and been put to bed for the night, you approach the role of a griefer.

I think you Mari in particular, as the perhaps the most outspoken person representing these avatars, have a job to do to educate your own on this. I have too often see kid avatars stepping way out of and beyond the "kick the can" and "play unencumbered with the responsibilities of adulthood" roles that are described on the Child Avatar wiki page (primarily maintained by you.) http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Child_Avatars

I have nothing against people (role) playing kids in SL, but if the person behind the avatar wants to venture into the grown up sphere that is not role play, then grow up, put on a grown up appearance and act the age you actually are. If you did, I am sure the controversy around such avatars would diminish substantially.

Lias' point on forbidding such avatars is not unethical; it might actually be the right thing to do according to legislation in countries other than the US. It would most likely decrease the risk of regulatory intervention or litigation substantially in doing so.

if you're trying to bring up old grudges: I'd say don't do it, but we all know people are going to do it every day and we can't stop it. no one ever thinks it's the right way to encourage discourse, we just do it because we're faulty robots.

if you're trying to bring a fight from another thread into the current one: this is kind of like internet stalking. following someone as they post around the site and constantly bringing that shit up is basically intensely creepy behavior.

if you're bringing up an old comment someone made that you thought was particularly awful because you just want everyone to know how despicable that one comment from 2 years ago really was: please get over it. life moves on.

if you want to bring up something someone else said a while ago that is germane to the discussion but is not specifically intended to target them for derision or ridicule: sweet. do yo thang.

anyway, as you can see, it's generally a good idea to refrain if you're doing it for negative reasons. no matter how tempting it might be to really stick it to that one dude/gal who has gotten your dander up, it's usually not that awesome. but it's always nice to bring up good things, for obvious reasons.

Dagmar, Ciaran - this thread is not about parades or ARs. Why derail the OPs thread with your off-topic issues?

The MetaTalk Website had a thread on this subject.


Understand fellas?

QFT

You failed to mention child avatars are the only avatars with special provisions in the TOS and therefore those wearing such avatars much exercise additional caution.

Lias' point on forbidding such avatars is not unethical; it might actually be the right thing to do according to legislation in countries other than the US. It would most likely decrease the risk of regulatory intervention or litigation substantially in doing so.

Lias did, though.

Jig, I think you missed her point, it was for you to justify your avatar and your avatar's behavior, not YOU as a human being.

I think the idea was.. oh say for example.. you were have group memberships listed in your profile that some people would find offensive and racist.. how would you justify those groups.. that type of thing.

Patasha