Can we get some clarification here?

I've really pushed for decency, and I think a lot of people know how I run my sims. I've had bans in place for the truly, truly, truly horrific stuff for a long time.


All that said - I think there's a lot to say in regard to 'slippery slope' now. It's one thing to ban simulated child rape and hate speech, but... sex groups?

Why?

Sure, the rules have always been in place, and we are governed by community standards. But that's just it. "Ageplay" has always been a hot-button issue. But the community hasn't really been upset over sex groups. If anything, these are so commonly seen it's painfully boring.

When was the last time someone really got upset because sex groups existed in Search?

You have to search for keywords yourself; you have to choose to look at profiles.

I see a *huge* difference between banning hate speech, and drawing a line at PG.

Just where is the line with "PG"? Even in spirit?

Most parents I know let their teenagers read Neil Gaiman and listen to NIN. Yet we won't allow other adults see the same level of stuff when actively seeking it?

I'm a tad confused as to why.

It doesn't matter Collette............it's still not about gender preferrences. Sorry, but I thought he might be talking about me because I actually agree with Zaphod 100%. And if you have read Zap's and my back and forths you might understand how unigue that really is................LOL.

The fact that both Angelique and I have been able to lead our lives fairly openly in SL is proof of the inherent liberality of LL policies, since they could quite easily ban us for either our stated sexual preference or for our less-than-conventional behavior. It's certainly their right to do so, regardless of whether of not it would be "fair."

And the fact that both of us -- despite our unconventional personal profiles -- have a respect for community standards is NOT a contradiction. On the contrary, I'm much more aware of the nuances and variations of community standards precisely because I do not fit them in my own inclinations. As a matter of survival, I've had to pay attention to where the lines are drawn.

In my case (can't speak for Angelique), I suspect that my age and ethnic background are also overriding influences. I'm older rather than younger, and the responsibility of assuming mature behavior was a value that was stressed in my childhood. Same for my Mexican background, which is more European in outlook. You show respect to other people and other cultures by assuming reasonable behavior which will not offend their sensibilities, even when they are not your own values. It's how you can jam so many people of such diverse backgrounds into small areas.

When I lived in New York City and had to shop in orthodox Jewish areas, I did not expect a man to shake my hand. I'm not an orthodox Jew, and I don't find their gender restrictions very palatable, but when I'm in what I perceive to be their community, I act accordingly. And if they came into the Village, they bloody well would have to deal with me holding hands with my lover because they were now on MY turf, my community standards.

Learning to shade your actions according to context is not an overwhelming burden. Unfortunately, too many people these days lack the practice that hones this valuable social skill.

I agree with you completely. So... whose parentally guided standards rule the streets of the grid, whose 'community turf' is it, what 'context' is the right one?

It's fair to ask for some clarification.

It absolutely is.

Maybe I opened up a can of worms that nobody really saw, when I mentioned Miller v. California. One of the questions they they faced was just that.. whose turf is it, when it comes to "community standards".. National vs local, etc. How does Second Life actually break down in terms of that demographic question?

"A measure of maturity is the ability for an adult to recognize that it's okay to wear a bikini at the beach, but a sign of disrespect and lack of judgment to wear it to a business meeting."

I agree absolutely!

However, a game is not a business meeting, even if many of the people playing it roleplay as store owners. *zing!*

Ultimately, I guess it's Linden's

All right everyones completely unwilling to discuss any actual regulations of whats acceptable

Saying people need to be discrete - cool - great idea. Works for some people. Ill guarantee you a lot wont "GET IT"

SO I have a few example questions that will reflect the world we actually live in -


-Escorts
*They list in their profile they are escorts ( PG or Mature?)
*Many list their rates (PG or Mature?)
*They have a group tag of Escort, Hooker, call girl, W/e (PG or Mature)
*Is an Escort Group even PG?
*What if they wear that Tag in a PG area? (PG or mature?)
*How about handing out their Escort Card (PG or mature?)

-Sex SLave
*They list on their profile the fact they are sex slaves, their owners, whether or not they are avialble to others, the gorean ones even tell you if they are a virgin (in code). (PG or Mature?)
*how about their group tag? calls them a Pet/slave/etc (PG/mature?)
*Is a sex slave group even PG?

-Dominants
*They list that they own people. (PG or Mature?)



Funny thing is theres varying levels of Mature. Much of what many of us consider fairly discrete isnt really PG. Espically in American culture.

Now I already know how this posts gonna get attacked - yay - but think a second on how many people are affected by this sort of thing.

I think I could find 100 profiles in very short order that violate CS, in my Opinion.

Obviously they dont think so. Or dont know its required.

My head's starting to hurt....

There is no monolithic answer that can remove all doubt, and expecting such a detailed guideline is simply futile. There are always shades of grey that have to be handled on a case-by-case basis and you may not like the judgment rendered as a result of this review, but there's no way to categorically state a particular decision is wrong, just that you don't agree with it.

A case in point: I make an SL product and advertise it using the word "dyke." In the current political lesbian community, "dyke" is not an epithet or a hate word. It is a term of pride or of tongue-in-cheek humor. But I thought twice about using it in SL because it's not a term that the RL straight community (or even some parts of the gay community) find acceptable.

My neighbors, who are very supportive of gay rights and who have a gay daughter, absolutely freaked when I used the word "dyke" one day. They were as uncomfortable that I had used that word to describe myself as I would be if they had used the N-word to describe themselves. Among their black friends, they probably do use it, but they don't use it around me. We belong to two different cultures and the words we use has a different connotation according to the context of who is using them and who is hearing them.

From what I could tell of the general SL community, with a fairly liberal acceptance of sexual non-conformity, the use of the word "dyke" could probably fall within community standards. But if LL sends me a stern IM asking me NOT to use the word, I would have to comply. With muttered cursing because "Lesbian-in-a-Box" simply doesn't have the same zing as "Dyke-In-A-Box" but I can't really argue the point because I'm probably straddling the line of PC behavior in the larger straight community where dyke is used as a hate word.

PS to add: The fact that LL is based in California was also a factor. I figured they had been exposed to enough gay culture to not recoil in horror at the use of the word dyke. If they'd been based in Ohio, I might have had more qualms about my decision.

Collette, that is where our benelevant (hahahaha.........spelling? ) dictator comes into play. SL can never be a democracy.......too many cultures to overcome plus who would we elect for our leaders? It's up to the "dictator" to define what is acceptable and what is not. I understand what you are saying. The only practical solution is for LL ( the dictator) to define it all. And when the TOS is vague or there's been a change in policy then LL should redefine it all again.

No way can LL let the community define any standards..............no representation is why. So LL needs to quit trying to be some sort of "free society" and actually give as much freedom as practical and maintain order within the community. It's LL's call entirely as the what is and is not proper behavior. We might have some input but very little since there is no way everyone will be happy.

Fine, but I really fail to see how simply being a member of a group is impinging on any non-group member. Are people so fragile that they would fall apart if someone belongs to a group they think is icky? Even if they would never come across that group unless they typed letters like "muc," in some particular order, into group search? Really, how is simply having a group membership being disprespectful to anyone?

When the group name is displayed above your head to everyone in SL who is within drawing distance of your AV, it should be subject to the broadest category of community standards.

If you're in doubt about the standards, either err on the side of caution or accept that its use may be challenged.

You could still have a(n) (eta: risque) group with a generic "member" title, but that is not what LL is asking for, apparently.

BINGO

Yes — preferably before they start banning people for violating the mystical new standards. Would have giving them 24 hours to change the group name themselves to something allowable been too much to ask? Rather, they rename and, as far as I can tell, ban. I'm sure many, if not most, offending groups would be willing to comply if they were told the bar had been raised, but they weren't given a chance.

Was anyone banned? I think it was a warning given privately to each who were in question..............and with an opportunity to comply. I've heard of no one being banned yet. Though I suspect if they refused to comply then maybe........not sure about that.

But a more open and decent thing would have been to make some sort of public notice to all about the change or "crack down".

But, no one every said LL was good at open communications.

Speaking of clarification, Lorelei mentioned two groups that had their names changed, but the term "ban" keeps getting tossed around. Which is it? Have some group names been changed, or have people been banned? If, indeed, people are suddenly being banned from SL because of an innappropriate group title, without any opportunity to fix the problem, then I would say this is heavy handed and completely out of the blue, and that more clarification is in order.

Is there a sudden rash of people being banned without any warning, or have a few group titles been changed?

Edit: Well, I guess I have just repeated Peggy's question. That's what you get for going to the kitchen with the edit window open. It is a relevant question, so perhaps it's worth asking twice. I see that Lorelei said, "Rather, they rename and, as far as I can tell, ban." If they banned the group owner, would the group continue to exist?

Yes, people have been banned, or at least suspended - the founders of the two groups no longer appear in search.

- And yes, groups continue to exist even after the owner's been banned, unless a Linden deletes 'em, so far as I know.

Witch hunts does happen alot. I got caught in one that was so childish and totally unfair to the point I was banned for lot less then a griefter that attacts people or causes mental harm..... looks like LLabs is reading profiles again. If you have any that are unstable to the llabs watchdogs you better WATCHOUT..........You would think those LLAbs Lindens have better things to do then read profiles and change questen names.......Looks like so linden need to prove then have worth to being a linden .... But Selling ones own account! That is TOS does not allow! How it sure seems like so know......report such actions to llabs? Yes do they care no! Why because If you pay alot of money in tier fees etc. LLabs can careless! Hence if those paying member that had their group nameds changed were LLabs would have left them alone......So So much BS in the rules these days. Have Money and land give you more and more power!

WELCOME TO THE POLICE STATE of SECOND LIFE...........

If they banned someone without an opportunity to correct the "problem" then I will change my stance..........in a heart beat.

Ok, thanks for the....uh...clarification

Yes, it's one thing to have an expectation that reasonable people will be able to grasp the subtle nuance of "community standards." It's another thing altogether to have a trap door ready if they guess incorrectly. It's in people's nature to push the envelope, but even the most ridiculous transgressions deserve a warning first.


Edit: SHeesh....I guess I'm Peggy's echo tonight.

Hahahahah.................it's okay. I need support sometimes.

But the TOS is NOT Vague, and there has been No change to it, Only an Increase in ENFORCEMENT.

Unlike Beebo, I'm rather young (29 with two years experience. Lol), I Come from a European Background (French) Which makes me on the whole far MORE open, and accepting of peoples differences. I was, as i said, Taught the Importance of courtesy, and Respect. Without those things you can NEVER have Freedom, because where people do NOT respect you, and your rights, you will Never be allowed to Live your life Freely.

Some Age Players were Injecting FAR too much Sex into thier advertising, thier profiles, and group descriptions, and the decore of thier Meeting Places, Using Phrases and Imagery that Boardered on the Illegal, and so They were told to remove it. The Lifestyle it's self Has Not Been Banned, and Any Profiles and/ore advertising of a Non Sexual Nature was Not included in the Warning Given by the Lindens. Many age play Places and groups were NOT sited, because they were Not in Violation.

Angel.