Define: Broadly Offensive

In reaction to a the recent event of kid skin vendors being returned under the [Ageplay] (read: sexual ageplay) rule that's being enforced by the Gteam; I have a thought and a question. (o.o)

How is "Broadly Offensive" defined? (>_<

Bear with me... My grammar gets funky at times like this. (T_T)

In my point of view, "Broadly Offensive" would mean that more than half of the visitors to a location have complained about the content in that location. That way it could be said that the broad opinion of the people attending have been offended. Thus... "Broadly Offensive". So, for something to be acted upon by governance under the term broadly offensive, it would take a stream of Abuse Reports to truly justify the action.

On the other hand, it could be that "Broadly Offensive" is based on a pre-defined list of potential offenses. If any item is found to be in reference to this list, it would simply take one or more complaints for the item to be acted upon.

Here's where the problem starts....

The location is question is VERY popular. The vendors, as I saw by location only, were discreet but not hidden so-to-speak. So, my guess is that the majority of the visitors would have seen the pictures. For however long the site has been in operation, it has had a HUGE number of visitors, yet, no known history on my part that it has been an offensive site to anyone who has ever been there.

So, has there been a recent onslaught of ARs from people or groups that are anti-kid avatar?

Or, the other side of the problem....

This theoretical list I spoke of. Having not seen the vendors, I can't say, but the general opinion I've heard was that they were PG compliant pictures. But, now suddenly, the PG compliant pictures have fallen under the "Broadly Offensive" category. So, this theoretical list must have been revised or in revision of some sort. I think it would be appropriate and beneficial for the rule makers and residents that this list (if it exists) be documented and/or released in some fashion and be made accessible as an addendum to the TOS/CS with a direct inclusion or link to the most recent revision of the rules. Is that too much to ask?

Or....

Why can't the CS be placed in an in-house managed Wiki? Something that can show the revisions, be as current as possible, have an easy method of creating updates for the admin/governance staff. That way details can be included in ways that can be monitored.

SL is a service. But it is also a community of people, with rules and guidelines in order to prevent most legal and social harm to its residents. Wouldn't it be fair that these guidelines be available in the most clear and detailed form possible?

Or, am I just diving off the deep end here? (T_T)

With the proviso that not everyone offended will bother to complain, I would say that this is the perfect definition of "Broadly Offensive", i.e. something that the majority of users find offensive.

broadly offensive is just a out that LL chose instead of having clear guidlines for AR's. Kinda reminds me of the spy on your neighbors of the brown shirt era or more recently the KGB.

broadly offensive is left up to the whim of the GTeam. No logic there Unless I see a clear violation of the CS or TOS I will not do a AR. Im not here to be a LL police force. AR's in themselves have become an abuse tool in many cases because LL doesnt want clear guidelines.

i think broadly wouldneed to be well over a simple majority of 50%,heck real world election can and have been won with 40% of the votes so logically i'm thinking maybe 65% or even higher to get into the broadly range

Are these anatomically correct kid skins with no underwear? I think we need to know more about what is being AR'd first.

No, underwear was baked on to the skin.

I've heard Mari state more than once that they're perma-undies PG skins. (^_^)

As a general rule: If you have to ask is this broadly offensive, it probally is.

Is anyone going to G Team office hours to discuss this stuff?

They removed THOSE skin vendors? OK, I would file a formal complaint about that content being removed. Someone greatly exceeded authority and common sense, if that is the skin merchant I am thinking of. Because those were flat-out G-rated kid skins with plain cotton kid's underpants that CAN NOT BE REMOVED, and are not a violation at all!

So what is a kid avvie supposed to wear for a skin? A grown-up skin that is explicitly detailed and has way too much makeup on for a kid? A skin with baked-in breast shadows that look terrible on a flat-chested kid in a modest two-piece swimsuit?

[EDIT]I just checked the merchant I thought was being referred to, and their vendors are indeed down, temporarily. They are reworking all their girl skins to have a baked-on swimsuit, because apparently the Lindens now find a topless female toddler in a completely innocent pose to be "offensive". Insane... [/EDIT]

Sure wish I could! I was stunned when I heard about it and find the action itself to be "broadly offensive".

Sadly, I think Toy kinda nailed it. You'll never get LL to nail down specifics because the original intent of the new "rules" (or whatever they are) was never to define things that need to be cleaned up in SL. The intent was to placate the mudslinging press by publicly condemning a vaguely-defined range of distasteful activities and putting an equally vague mechanism in place so they can be seen to respond quickly and decisively when some peabrain complains. I bet all it took in this case was one very well-written AR with lots of impressive-sounding moral rhetoric that resulted in some random GTeam member getting caught up in the hysteria long enough to do this unspeakably stupid thing.

Interesting.... http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Office_Hours/GTeam

"Please note: we will be suspending all GTeam office hours for the rest of 2008 and restarting sometime next year. Please watch this space for the new office hours."

Couldn't have happened at a more appropriate time? (T_T)

Hmm....that depends on what the definition of is is.

*************************
Unfortunately, Immy..."Broadly Offensive" does not and cannot have a definition. The CS use it as a catch-all to give LL the leeway to take "judgement" actions.

So any and all actions are vulnerable to a "broadly offensive" label depending on who sees, what mood they are in, the phase of the moon, where the boss is, what they had for lunch that day,....*sigh*

Shenanigans!

You are SO moving the goalposts here.

How about an anatomically complete statue of a horse? Would that be "broadly offensive"? What if it's by Frederick Remington and in the lobby of the Hyatt Regency, a PG zone if ever I've heard of one? But I'll bet if you had it in a build in a PG sim you'd get ARed.

I'd be sorely tempted to AR the members of the G-Team, for "Intolerance", but that wouldn't help matters. *sighs*

Maybe I'll start using "Broadly Offensive" when I'm ARing adfarms. Because if there's ANYTHING in SL that's genuinely "broadly offensive", that's it.

On the plus side, the nitwits who run those office hours won't be in the way of their victims going straight to their boss.

Clarifying.

Two skin vendors that I know of have faced this issue that I know of.

Person one was a fairly new vendor, located within a mature sim, but otherwise selling PG materials for child avatars. The vendors in question showed the skins, which included "baked on" underwear on the lower parts of the skin. The vendors were compliant with what little the GTeam has said about kid skin vendors in the past.

Person two has been selling kids skins for roughly two years. These two feature "baked on" underwear on the lower half of the body. Vendor images do not show the avatars engaged in any inappropriate activity. When the rules changed on sexual ageplay over a year ago, she did have her vendors reviewed by a Linden. They were allowed.

Both persons had their vendors removed at one location, citing "Real-life images, avatar portrayals, and other depictions of sexual or lewd acts involving or appearing to involve children or minors are never allowed within Second Life."

Further, it was requested that the vendors be updated to show the child avatars in question "fully clothed."

Person one appealed the decision, and was told that the decision of the GTeam would stand. Person two is writing her appeal at this time. Person two has also removed all her vendors, reworked them to only show the faces (and in a couple cases, the hands) of the avatar skins, and put them back inworld. She may also be modifying the skins themselves based on feedback from LL and her own desire to keep within the right side of the law on this issue. Then again, she might just leave SL altogether, as the accusation that she was somehow involved in a "lewd act" with a child on her record did hurt her very deeply.

And yes, the lack of a GTeam office hour today was more than a little frustrating to me personally, as I was going to address three questions to them based on the above incidents. I have since notecarded those and given them to the GTeam members ho usually operate office hours, and places a support ticket to them with the aforementioned questions.

If their bosses weren't on vacation that might work. I asked for a definition a long time ago when that term first came out. It's posted in here somewhere. The Lindens told me that it is something that you wouldnt do in front of your Grandmother. In this day and age though who the heck knows what Grammy would do. I am betting most of them would do a lot more then we would and it wouldnt bother them a bit.

There's been a number of other cases where innocent photographs of people's own offspring have led to arrests. I personally find this offensive.

This is all so ridiculous, I just feel like banging my head into my desk... -_-

I've been looking for a human skin recently (usually neko), and when I finally found one that seemed right for me, it turned out the seller didn't offer demo's. The skin was only presented with pictures of the face, and I wished there had been a full body shot cause OMG I might go swimming one day! (I did take a chance on the skin anyways, and don't regret it, but I consider that luck)

I guess since that was a boy skin there would not be a problem showing the upper body, but... As far as I know, the upper body on a male and female child are identical.

Having seen the skin vendors from one of the sellers before all this happened, I can only say that the ones putting those vendors in connection with any "lewd" actions have very, very disturbing minds.

Broadly Offensive means what ever you want to at the time to get your way

LL Head in the sand attitude as always Imi

Personally what I find personally "Broadly Offensive" is assumption that all ageplay or child wearing avatar is into kinky sexual role play.
I also find it Broadly Offensive that we are the one's required to report TOS violations when anyone looking at world map including the Lindens can see who is obviously breaking the rules.
I find it offensive that a place with signs saying they are Kid Safe would have adult sex poses, or special poses for Children and adults to do sexual things in world, that they still exist and LL doesn't have clue what is going on in their own data base.
It shouldn't be the job of the Residents to police SL i.e find and report violations of the TOS.
The owners of the service provider that makes SL should have clue what is going on inside it's own world.
Few of the places I know about is because my rl partner told me he stumble upon them exploring and was creep out upon finding them.
The other is when I was exploring more adult aspects of SL I stumble upon this one guy who was into this and it was really creepy.
And he was insistent that all ageplay was sexual and that was what he was looking for.
I was physically sick for days.
It is broadly offensive when simple encounter inside SL makes me feel traumatized and physically ill for weeks later encountering it.
And it has be something major because simple avatar beheading doesn't traumatize me.