Another pat on the back for the Lindens

Date: Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Violation: Community Standards: Ageplay
Region: Misfits Cove
Description: Sexually soliciting a child avatar
Action taken: Warning issued.

Date: Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Violation: Community Standards: Ageplay
Region: Troubled City
Description: Sexually soliciting a child avatar
Action taken: Warning issued.

Question being: After all the drama over sexual ageplay, what kind of creep and/or idiot does it take to solicit a child av now?

Second question: Who else wants to applaud the Lindens for taking action - and for announcing it on the police blotter, where it might serve as a warning?

And look: a way forward for noncybering child avs subjected to harrassment: AR, AR, AR.

Blah!

A few weeks ago there was a beastaity in the ( event listing )reported. thought that was a step in the right direction.

So...what would happen if the CHILD were the one soliciting? As long as the person behind the child (and the solicitee as well) were consenting adults behind their avatars, and they went somewhere private...what then??? I actually know women in RL who are over 21 who look like they are 15. (Yeah, I checked their driver’s license to be sure) is this a perception thing? If not, what is it?

If they look like a child, build wise AND height. ID themselves as a child. Attempt to be sexual, then it is not allowed. This doesn't have as much to do with the legal definition of kiddie porn, except in Germany, but with the bad publicity it gets the Lindens.

But just because an AV is short does not make them a child.

Just a warning, though?

That was my first thought too. But the pantywaists at LL tend to be light on handing out punishment.

Suppose if nothing else, at least it's something.

I'd hope the first time is a warning, the second time is a suspension, and the third time is the perm ban-hammer. Three strikes is the norm in most places, so hopefully LL isn't any different.

That and a warning provides a paper trail..

I can think of two reasonable explanations:

1. There could be enough ambiguity about the circumstances, word choices, etc. to hesitate about using the banhammer in a particular case.

2. I have known of a couple of cases where the police blotter showed a warning or short suspension and I could figure out what the incident was (because I had filed the ARs - I use sandboxes a lot) - and the perp disappeared permanently from Search. I think they post the immediate penalty given out pending review but not the final disposition of the case. In fact, I don't ever recall an outright ban being posted in the police blotter, and people do indeed get banned for the kinds of violations that appear in it.

Of course they don't actually say that sexual ageplay is not allowed specifically in the TOS or Community Standards.

So I suppose just a warning isn't all that strange.

The child Avatar is an adult IRL, and its reasonable to suggest that the offender didnt know about the ban.

If you were new to SL and didnt read the Blog or the Forums how would you know that Sexual Ageplay is banned?

Just through word of mouth, basically.

Even the Blog doesn't have a "Stickey" about sexual age play being banned.

the thing is how are people supposed to know this?

Where is the information given out that a average SL resident would know?

We dont count were all forums trolls.