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

Maybe you should be. Really. I mean, look at what she said in this thread. It's a more cogent position than your own. You want everyone to give up child avatars; she wants a ban. Which approach is more likely to succeed?

I can tell you for sure that if you try to convince me to give up my child avatar, there is no way it will happen, since your arguments having nothing to do with anything I do in SL.

You've set up a strawman with a child avatar. You can flog that strawman all day, but nothing will ever come of it.

All I will add to this thread at this point is that both Marianne and I belong to a group in-world called Second Life Children, or SLC - which does, in fact, exist partly to provide members with information and resources in regards to avatar-childhood and the special responsibilities and considerations thereof. SLC has a number of kiosks on the grid in kid-centric areas where people can get notecards and links regarding these very issues, the importance of conduct in the public eye and how peoples' public misbehavior can have an effect on ALL child avatars in SL, the latest LL edicts and actions regarding child avatars, and all other manner of education. We are not the Lindens and cannot enforce anything - still, the information IS there and freely accessible and offered to all. All the horses can get to the water.

So Mari has already done her "job", if you want to insist that's what it is.

Certainly, they don't have the sim border crossing problems that SL has either.

Rock

Oh god I am getting tired of hearing this.

Lias did NOT -- I repeat, DID NOT -- "organize" people to "stalk child av's" and entrap them. What she DID do was make an ill-advised off-the-cuff remark that has been quoted again and again and again out of context.

I disagree with Lias's views on child avis pretty much entirely. I disagree with the comment that she DID make, and I regret that she made it. But instant folklore is hard at work here turning a stupid comment into an actual campaign on her part. I am growing excessively weary of this kind of misinformation turning the discussion into a lynch mob. Lias is entitled to her opinion, and has the same rights as everyone else here to express it. Period. End of story.


When? When and where did she do this?

It sounds like all the rest to me no matter how you intended it.. From the reaction of a lot in here they see the same as well..
You wanted opinions you are getting them..
I'm sure some are tired frustrated comments like mine but thats because it's been drug through the ringer more times than we can count..call it wrath or whatever you want..
I think my name looks good behind that word hehehehe

This.

People do not automatically have my permission to involve me in their RP simply because they are role-players--unless I'm in an explicitly designated role-play area. Every person operating an AV in SL is supposed to be an adult. I assume they are.

I might find it amusing to play along with people who are posing as kids for a while, but they have no right to expect me to do that. If they try to interfere with what I'm doing because of the character they're playing, I will politely inform them that I'm not role-playing. If they continue, I'm likely to say something along the lines of "Give me a break! Either you're an adult playing with toys in here, in which case, I don't want to play your game, or you're a real child, in which case I'm ARing you. In fact, I might AR you if you're an adult and you continue to try to regulate my behavior based on your RP. So what would you like to have happen right now?"

It's one thing to play along with people's RP for fun. It's quite another when people start demanding that rules be created, and enforced, for the sake of RP. And that includes ridiculous rules concerning what consenting adults can do in a private location based on what avis they're wearing. There. I said it. Now send the thought-police after me.

[EDIT] Hm. I wonder how much of this discussion would be rendered moot if people didn't have to be afraid of being ARed and banned for continuing to do adult things in the presence of child avs? That's probably the root of this whole thing, isn't? Imagine an SL where Linden lawyers aren't afraid of paranoid self-appointed "protectors of the children". Imagine an SL where everyone is assumed to be an adult and is expected to act like one when it comes to matters of serious import. This whole discussion would go away, wouldn't it, if nobody had to worry about what some shadowy lurker might do to them if they overstepped the nebulous bounds of the TOS regarding child avs--if they--heaven forfend--just assumed everybody here was an adult?

I see it over and over again in this forum. People's ideas and behaviors are getting seriously bent out of shape over an extreme absurdity--the notion that a cartoon of a child must be treated like a real child. People can actually lose access to SL and their very real *money* because of this absurdity. It has to stop. We should all stand up against it. If we don't, who knows what the next thing will be that they'll hold our behavior hostage to?[/EDIT]

I'm looking, but will take some time. Forum search isn't being particularly cooperative.

The thought police are not after you. You know how to defend yourself.

You don't need to find the quote, Katheryne, I'm quite familiar with it.

My point is that it did NOT constitute an actual attempt to organize an entrapment squad. And I've never heard ANYONE provide anything like proof, or even an instance, that she actually DID it.

It was a dumb remark made in public chat in the heat of the moment. But it has been elaborated over time into "proof" that she actually DID this.

My apologies if I sound a bit over-the-top about this, but I don't like seeing discussion turning into a pile-on, especially when it involves incorrect information.

It was not a single off the cuff remark taken out of context. The proposed "sex HUD parade" through Zindra just never came off, probably for lack of child avatars in Zindra to AR.

Milla, do you have anything like proof of this? That she ACTUALLY intended to do this? Did she have a posse on hand to help her with it?

If I am wrong about this, I will certainly retract. But I've never seen anything beyond the endless citation and recitation of the same comment to suggest that there was anything else behind this but ill-advised bravado.

I think the reason people believe this is due to the acts of her boyfriend, when he staged the incident at the Zindra opening. It sheds a superficial veneer of credibility to the idea that her offhand suggestion was serious.

This is my belief as well.

The whole incident was regrettable, without question. But I'm worried that this is being used to essentially shout someone down.

No need to apologies. I understand. If I am wrong, then I am wrong. I recall seeing the events in question not as an idle suggestion, but as an actual attempt. But since trying to search out specific information either here in the forums or on the "blorums" is like looking for hay in a needle-stack (and just as painful), I can't find the exact context of the event anymore so I can re-read it.

Add to this the fact that every time someone brings it up, she dodges, evades, and throws smokescreens rather than deny or explicitly own it. It certainly does not help her credibility in any way.

Understood, Katheryne. I am about 99% that nothing like this actually happened, but I too am willing to admit that I am wrong, should that be incorrect.

The idea of a sex HUD parade through Zindra was discussed in the Monorail station at Mosh in the days after the Zindra opening party. I don't believe it ever occoured, but it was spoken of.

Except for a reference to it in a lengthy IM (which obviously can't be posted here), I doubt there's any record of it. Those who discussed it can certainly clarify any details here if they choose.

Kat - and the rest of you 'paradist' - you can not justify taking the OPs thread over because you have a bone to pick with one poster. Get over it or start the thread on it in SL Universe. They love this type of schlock outrage and you could vent and lolcatz all you wanted there.

Except when they throw you off the train at the border for violating the region's dress code.

Oh no!

I can understand that..I don't really rp myself anymore..In fact my friends know i won't..Trust me it's almost to the point i can't anymore LOL
I get too giggly and start messing around too much.hehehe

If they want to rp around me amongst each other thats fine..Be a dragon talking to another dragon or two vamps talking about who's blood is better or whatever..When i talk to people in sl it's more times than not to the person at the keyboard..A lot tend to break from IC from my experience..

Most of my friends and me look at our avas as just something we mess with and love to shop for or build things for..Some are very deep into RP..I can tolerate them saying things to me IC but i'm gonna respond OOC most times..

If i do react in an RP sense it is usually me over acting the part to try to get them to giggle and break IC hehehehe

Once i get going look out..I can be a very good over actor..Pretty soon it is them saying "Ok enough already"!! hehehehe..I just like to make people giggle and they are all a new chalange lol

I don't think i could AR someone for RPing around me though..I guess i just figure it's part of sl and i'm gonna run into people that like to be their avatars..
Thats me though..

Gonna tackle this one seriously, and hopefully in a single post. And before I do, let me state I don't think there are any "bad guys" here.

1) "SL children, awareness, &c"

I'm a very active parent of 3 kids, I've volunteered to work with high school age kids in what most would consider to be bad, dangerous, gang~ridden areas for decades. My opinions have been formed long ago.

With respect to adults, kids and scary activity... I've had jerks call my house (back years ago when I was more casual with my online identity) ~ my kids picked up the line, it scared the crap out of them. Probably a harmless prank, but threats of harm to a tiny moppet: Not. Funny. Another incident: I caught a guy taking pics of my then 12 year old daughter at the beach... and when I went over closer to the water, he fled. Not funny *at all*. Those incidents, the Amber Alerts I see all too frequently on the So Cal freeways and so forth have long ago cemented my opinions. There is such a thing as horror in this world, and as you read this, some very real kid somewhere is experiencing it. What lines I draw, I draw sharply and conservatively. But those lines have been drawn long ago; what I've seen on the grid hasn't changed my opinions any.

* * * * *

With respect to the following:

~ kiddie football coaches,
~ professional clowns,
~ day care providers,
~ high school camp counselors,
~ adults playing kids online,
~ members of the clergy,
~ Captain Kangaroo,
~ Mr Rogers,
~ Hobo Kelly (google her! I was a fan when I was three or so)
~ Big Bird, &c

...none of these are inherently evil. Could they be? Well, sure. Hey, if you work with plutonium or poisonous snakes, there's obvious risks and consequences with those, too. Just my take on things.

* * * * *

2) "a good thing you don't understand"

... I have no idea? Honestly I don't see kid av's as quite that big a deal.


* * * * *

With respect to the grid,

a) Do people have rights to pretty much do as they please... yes they do, within rational limits. No sexual ageplay lest the grid is ruined for everyone, see c) below. Yeah, I think fantasies about sexual ageplay are a damn dangerous thing not to be encouraged. Entire societies all too easily slip into "slavery is okay, happens all the time" or "we need to kill off all the people not like us here" or "yeah it's totally common to sell children into the sex trade, it's normal." I'm not talking historically, I'm talking about stuff going on *right now*.

b) Do you have to tolerate anyone you don't want to... no you don't. Easiest way to exercise this control is to simply leave a situation. I also believe in reasonably free speech, so if you choose to state an opinion in hopes of altering your world, well, you can do that too. And should.

c) What would be the big exception here? For me, only one thing, probably best described as "paedogeddon" ... if the boundaries were being pushed SO hard that it would be "no child avatars or no grid" ~ I wouldn't elevate child avatars to a grid~destroying cause celebre'. Just not worth it, srsly. But I don't see us anywhere near that point.

People are understandably emotional about the safety of their children. I respect people's desire to protect their children. I understand that people, when they feel their children are threatened, can sometimes go "over the top" to defend them.

However, being a parent does not confer special rights on citizens that empower them to interfere with other adults' personal and private behavior. Parents, like everybody else in society, must keep their overt behavior within civilized limits. In particular, they must not attempt to violate the civil or human rights of others in their efforts to defend their children.

Starfish are not stars. Stars are not fish. The fact that things have similar names does not mean there is any sort of real relationship between them.

It is a fundamental principle of science that correlation does not prove cause and effect; in fact, in the strictest sense, it can never be proven that A caused B. The fact that some criminals have the same sexual fantasies as a much, much larger number of people who are not criminals does not prove that Fantasy A causes criminal behavior B, or predisposes one to it. It's the same as the fallacy that marijuana is a "gateway drug" for heroin addiction. Yup, you can easily find a hundred heroin addicts who smoked marijuana before they used heroin. You can also easily find 100,000 people who smoked marijuana but never touched heroin. You can find 100 Irish people who are alcoholics and claim "All Irish are alcoholics", or you can find a few million Irish people who don't drink at all.

People have a tendency to violate sound principles of reasoning when their emotions are involved. It happens, we understand it. It's still wrong, and it's very, very wrong to make public policy on the basis of unsound reasoning.

The most important words in the phrase "sexual fantasies among consenting adults" are "consenting" and "adults". As there are some heroin addicts and alcoholic Irish people, some people engaging in these fantasies have issues that are problematic or disturbing. But whether you're talking age-play, dominance-submission, or anything else, the vast majority of people doing it are in full command of their faculties, are doing it because they like it and have freely chosen to do it. And they are only doing it with other adults. There is simply no rational basis for connecting this fact with the behavior of criminals who have very different reasons and intentions for their behavior.

Thoughtful people ought to be making that point more often, rather than going along with the crowd. Every generation has these battles between safe, ignorant orthodoxy and truths that scare people. In my parents' generation in the USA, it was McCarthyism and the communists under every bed. I think in my generation in this country, it's the myth that pedophilia is widespread and has some connection with adult sexual fantasies.

That's the really scary thing, to me. That instead of learning from the McCarthy era, we just keep doing this witch-hunting thing over and over, and even very intelligent and thoughtful people feel compelled to permit it to go on, because to do otherwise can have very real and devastating consequences when somebody jumps up, points a gnarled finger at them, and cries "WITCH!"

The nude person was Vryl @ Zindra the day after opening.

Second Life is not reality.






Kthxbai.

I did - I was one of the original posters and have chatted with Dakota but never met him. Decent man. Actually, really a cute man. But I will never meet him knowingly as the child he portrays. In that regard he recognizes that he would be banned from any land I own because of his child av. If only he was 18! But there is nothing personal in that. Nope, not fighting with myself (unless you refer to the gooseberry sauce I am creating at this moment to then be refined still further into a vinegar )
I am stuck on the child avatar question up to a point. I cant help it; it bothers me. It's not a "bad" thing but it isnt in my comfortzone to be honest. Maybe I am too close to that age - maybe not. It one fo those things that makes me question my own presence here and even to ask why it is so heavily defended when, really, I (and others) just ask a simple question. To paraphrase Shakespeare, "Methinks they do protest too much".

I am NOT opposed to child avs "per se"; I am opposed to what may be "trolling in their wake" or be playing in their sandpit with them.

Yeh, it's SO stupid, if they're a guy they're a Warlock, not a Witch. Sheesh.