Is "Restricted" any different from "Mature?"

Given LLs (somewhat understandable) reluctance to clearly define things, my money is on one region flag and one parcel flag.

Applesauce Im hoping Actually Im not going to IDV because that would be saying Im a kid av sure but I want to see graphic sexual contact and things with a lot of violence. My land will remain M but not be restricted. Kids have enough problems in SL already without adding to them. The location will be in addition to the existing M rating, not to replace it. Reasoning being my land will be M so if someone says a naughty word they arent breaking some archaic rule but the land will not have things that go overboard.

Im looking for something like:

PG=as present PG
M=adult slightly above PG
IM=Immature which is restricted

I thought I was fairly clear. I asked for further clarification but she stopped posting on that thread.

Ive been following the distinction closely - since it affects my shop.

They used the word "Adult Flag" but never did they mention the "Mature Flag" whose function had been changed a scant 2 weeks before.

Simple logic would dictate that since a flag already is there, to avoid confusion you would explain it either is not the same one, or that it is.

At which point it merely is the "Mature" checkbox which the OP refers to.

A rose by any other name ..


It makes sense to change "Mature" to "adult" or "restricted" since that clears up the currently existing confusion between the flag and the Parcel designation. Which if Meade is right about Robin, she even gets confused by.

This is the common sense approach, in my opinion, but you never know with LL. I assumed this was the case based on the release notes when they introduced the mature flag anyway. Chances are, Robin is being fed some information that doesn't quite match up with what has been implemented, and she's not going to divert from the script unless they tell her otherwise.

I think it's pretty obvious that at the time Robin was answering these questions, they were still dealing at the policy level and hadn't finished nailing down all the implementation details. And not being on the engineering side, it's not surprising that she would skip over the question.

As I've said in the past, it's more productive to try to influence LL to implement these flags in a way that servers your needs than it is to speculate what the implementation might be based on a Q&A discussion that took place some months ago, when the idea was first being floated in public and clearly hadn't been implemented yet.

We'll never have specific guidelines to follow, because LL believes providing those does more harm than good, and even if they did exist it's ultimately up to whichever Linden handles a possible abuse report.

The first few days will probably be the most telling: if someone owns a public place they'll look at what their "competition" is doing and follow suit. If their competitor isn't restricting, they won't either for fear of loosing business/appeal and the chance of getting caught is close to non-existant anyway.

If people find only one or two places of all the ones they go to flagged restricted, they won't feel it's worth age verifying either and will simply look elsewhere.

Restricting unverifieds never became widespread either despite the more than obvious benefits just because noone wanted to be the only one doing it.

The only ones who've ever actually referred specifically to TWO different toggle/flags have been residents.

So speculating that we will get two is has no basis either.

I dont know that we *need* two , as long as theres some other solution for the Places search than the current.

Is restricted any different to mature? Good question. As this is about minors accessing restricted content then the lines get blurry as to what minors who shouldn't be here in the first place, should be allowed to access.

LL are hoping common sense will prevail on this issue.

But what about the trust angle!

"The IDV system aims to deliver two things. First, for Residents, it gives them the chance to independently verify certain aspects of their identity (their name, age, location and sex for instance) if they choose to. This will help establish trust by removing a layer of anonymity for those they interact with. It’s much easier to trust someone who puts their name behind their words and actions."

How can we trust those who don't IDV via a flawed process that proves not a fat lot at all?

Anyone using the IDV system to me has lost trust points they may have aquired hehe.

And stating that LL is hoping common sense will prevail is a bit rediculous to me, common sense didnt prevail throughout this whole fisaco. LL offers me a place that is +18 and I join it, I joined because this was one of the3 options. I agreed I was +18, stayed, paying tier, for well over 3 years and now Im asked to use IDV? Hardly, just be honest, LL say it'sa CYA situation. No trust involved.

Actually that quote is absurd. I can't hide my name. It's written up above my head! Identity in SL is one's SL identity. I can change my name in RL more easily than change my name in SL. As a businesswoman, I'm dependent on my reputation. I depend on the fact that people trust Daisy Rimbaud to deliver good products and good customer service.

What goes on behind the scenes between me, LL and any third party is a total irrelevance.

The REAL missing bit of information is "When?"

Robin's post is now over a month old? It was written as if it "IDV" was already implemented, but as it was not, surely it meant that it was like immenent? And yet nothing...

It's now been 6 months since they said that age verification was going to be implemented. (Initially it was to be by the end of May!) One can hope that the delay is due to reconsideration after the backlashes unleashed by the inexplicable blog posting.

But realisticly, it's par for the course. Announce something, then shelve it for months, Or secretly work on it then annouce deployment with 2 days notice. Not trying to be snarky, just realistic based on past performance.

Next week, month or year it will finally be announced for real on monday for a wed rollout

I'm all for them taking their time, both because I want as many bugs shaken out as possible before it hits the mainland and because I'm not really looking forward to the amount of drama it will create...

Need another year? Take it!