Will child-av content be allowed on Mature sums?

This is a misunderstanding and I tried to explain it before. The background of PG selection (a feature that is already existing in 1.23 btw) is to avoid incidentally teleporting from an Adult into a PG area and by doing so risk to be ARed and banned. If I want to go shopping and search for products, I certainly will turn PG search on to find what I'm looking for. However when searching for adult places I want be able to avoid PG flagged areas to pop up in search. It also doesn't mean exclusive search for one or the other but a simple and easy to understand selection:
[ ] PG [ ] Mature [ ] Adult

The 2 other critical areas are:
- Crashes or server/sim downtime and potential logon in a PG place like a Welcome area. In the "adult outfit" one wearing before.
- Accidential TP form an Adult into a PG area. This could be mitigated by verifying the rating of both places and pop up a warning if they don't match.

I just climb in here =) I want to be able to search for generic products in All regions, or in PG regions, or in Mature regions or in Adult regions or any combination like PG+M or M+A or whichever. At the moment I can search in PG or PG+M. I cant search just in M if I choose to. Seems to me that with the upcoming changes to Search now is a good time to extend the filters available to us, I dont see this as a bad thing. More power to the customer really.

I entirely agree with your analysis. It is a ridiculous situation, and completely unsustainable.

Pep (What about the other way around? Changing from an adult avatar in an adult place into a kid avatar, and saying "Stop that!"

I am very suspicious of people who are suspicious of people who don't want kid avatars looking over their shoulder in Adult locations.

Pep (In the UK I drink in pubs and bars that apply the law that says "No under-18s", not the ones that have toddlers running around and teenagers binge drinking on alcopops)

I think, though, this is the major problem with mixing teens and adults on the same grid. Not only will it be harder to take an av that looks like a child at face value - an adult playing the role of a child, for example - but also avs that look like adults since I'm pretty sure the first thing most RL kids would want to do is build an adult av.

The point about sexual content is a pretty clear worry but I can think of many otherwise innocuous subjects I wouldn't want to casually broach in the presence of a child. Adults can be touchy enough but even relatively mature children can be easily impressed in the wrong way if an issue is not handled with due respect to their age and lack of experience.

That's heavy stuff that belongs in RL where we tend to know where we stand. SL interaction will otherwise have two gears: keep to yourself and strictly control the company you keep, or behave like Mary Frickin Poppins at all times.

that is called placing a child av near a sexual object, it comes down to who does the changing of the scene, the person that changes it such a way that a child av is near a sexual object is at fault.

so adult av rezzes a sex bed near a child av, adult is at fault, child av walks over or changes in child form near a sex bed, child av is at fault, seems prety simple rule to understand to me.

And I suppose LL have the ability to track the exact timing of effective rezzing of objects or changing of avatar image so that ARs can be logically pursued?

Pep (Didn't think so)

Could you give an example of such subjects, please?

This is yet another reason why a snapshot shouldn't be used as sole evidence, apart from the obvious photo manipulation issues. With no context, you can't tell the difference between an accidental TP and an ongoing scene and you can't tell which, if either, is at fault.

actualy they can, the uuid of rezzed items is a coded form of the time an object is rezzed, if the ARed object is older then the AR it is clear that the child av came later, if the object is of the same age as the AR then the object's owner is the guilty part.

the question should be if the G team is not to lazy to do this check and not just asume guilt

Religion, politics, ethics, morality (which isn't restricted to sexuality by any means) and even use of language are subjects that are sensitive in the company of children. One child might be fairly well-adjusted to deal with issues arising from them where another might very well not be: it all depends on the child himself and how his parents or guardians may have guided him.

However vehemently adults might disagree about these matters - even in passing - they are a potential minefield in the mixed company of adults and minors and there is every chance that no end of trouble will ensue.

It is not a prospect I would care to deal with in-world and I do not see why we should have to do so.

The timing of the AR is irrelevant, because it will almost certainly be a significant time after the fact, particularly in contested situations. It is the comparative timing of the object rezzing and avatar morphing that matters.

And did you miss the "Effectively" in my question?

Pep (Do little white clouds on my screen count as kid avatars or adult? Do spaces where sexbeds might or might not be count as Adult objects?)

ETA (because you revised your post after I responded) I would like to say that you seem now to be agreeing with my argument.

Self-modifying code.

I don't know exactly which algorithm SL uses to generate the UUID, but the standard algorithms can't easily be reversed. Unless there's a very small timeframe, and hence a very small number of timestamps to actually check, it's probably not practical to derive the time from the UUID.

Of course, they could simply log the time. Even then, because of synchronization issues (in the parallel programming sense) it might not be a fair guarantee of what happened first from the human perspective.

I'm afraid I don't see it for any of these. At least, not unless someone is promoting a stance that's unacceptable for anyone, not just minors.

Could you be more specific, please?

I guess I could but I don't see the point if you cannot extrapolate examples for yourself. Perhaps you simply don't agree?

I don't expect the usual responsibilities pertaining to the society of children and adults in RL to vary much in SL but I do expect that the circumstances will be much cloudier and far more hazardous since the genuine (that is RL) status of individuals will not be clear.

Kids get sent to bed (PG) when the adults want to do/talk adult things... and they aren't allowed in adult clubs etc. I don't know how you can have a child life without the responsibility of the adult at the computer?

Does it mean for the freedom to use the adult areas as adults, adult avis need to walk around with holding an adult object rezzed permanently?

Here comes the penis charm bracelet.

I was on the fence with this... child avis need a safe and respectful space for sure, but not when they or their adult computer user can halt the adult activity of a place simply by refusing to leave.

That's just not cricket.

QFT. Had there been any doubt of this--any hint of suspicion that they actually meant to achieve their *stated* objectives here--such confusion has been removed now that we know Estates can have Adult and sub-Adult content in adjacent regions. That is to say, we'll still be able to see floating megaprimnii from PG land.

Predictable, but perhaps not the "more predictable" hyped in the press release.

Yep. Exact same thing will happen on Adult land. LL can't seem to get its collective head around that (e.g., the pending removal of the "Adult" content category from Search/Places, and the flip-flops on eligibility for the Ursula land-swap).

The point would be to communicate and explain your position, so that it can be discussed without forcing people to make assumptions. We may wind up not agreeing, but at least we'll know what we're not agreeing about and hopefully understand the other point of view. At a minimum, we ca discuss and learn from each other.

But for you to say that I should extrapolate examples is like me saying you should be able to figure out on your own why your assumptions are wrong. There's no point in making an assertion if you're not willing to explain and justify it.


I have close friends with whom I socialize whose teenage kids are often present. The sorts of things I wouldn't discuss with the kids present are the sorts of things that I wouldn't discuss with other adults present, either, unless they were also close friends. But that's personal stuff. Religion, politics, ethics, and morality are all things that not only would I discuss in front of them, but they're things I believe should be discussed in front of teens. It's one of the important ways they learn about such things.

That you discuss these issues with the children of your close friends does not mean to say that you are free to discuss them with the children of others who may not share your attitudes or those of your close friends.

While minors are individuals in their own right, with their own rights to self expression and so forth, they are still under the supervision of their parents and guardians. It is quite possible that an exchange of views on any number of thorny topics between you or your friends and their children might be considered thoroughly inappropriate and even actionable by other parents.

As I said, there is every chance that no end of trouble will ensue. The responsibility of adults to guard their speech and behaviour around children in RL becomes an unreasonable bind on their enjoyment in SL - the medium is just not well enough defined to allow for the subtlety of judgement required of adults when they are dealing with children.

Besides, I should say that the topics I listed may not match the sort of things you would not discuss with children or even adults who are not close friends but that simply reinforces my point: each to his own is a privilege extended only to those above the age of majority, otherwise Mom and Dad will always have the last say on what you may or may not say in their child's hearing whether you mean well or not.

Ahh. That's a totally different point. It's one thing to say that you wouldn't discuss these things in front of minors because they're impressionable and could be hurt. It's another to say that you won't discuss them because their parents might object, regardless of whether there's any actually harm.

That's certainly a legitimate point, and one with which I agree - in RL. I'm not sure that it applies to the context of SL, or the internet in general. One can easily find numerous web pages, Usenet groups, and other discussions around politics, religion, ethics, and morality, few of which have any age controls whatsoever. While in RL, I may have a social obligation to the parents of kids to avoid such discussions in public, the nature of the internet puts the onus on the parents to enforce their standards.

I can certainly imagine having a rational discussion about why particular religious beliefs may be wrong. I can imagine many parents who hold to such beliefs being strongly against exposing their kids to such discussions. I don't believe they have the right to censor the entire internet as a result. Once they give their kids permission to surf the net without personal monitoring, whether SL or Web or newsgroups, they have no reasonable expectation that their kids won't be exposed to such discussions.


Lest you think I believe anything goes in front of children, let me clarify my position. i believe that you have a responsibility to guard your speech and behavior around strangers, period. If there's something you want to say (outside the context of sex) that you wouldn't if you thought a kid was around, then I question whether it's appropriate to say in front of strangers at all.

They are two sides of the same coin: one involves respect for the impressionability of the child and the other involves respect for his parents or guardians - good parenting is a difficult enough task that I personally wouldn't wish to complicate for anyone.


I sincerely hope you are right but I doubt it: my opinion is that a mixed grid will certainly not allow for such liberties on the part of adults in SL.


I totally agree. However, thousands wouldn't and there is a very real movement amongst stakeholders such as Government, ISPs and local communities to reinforce child protection in the medium by laying the onus of 'child-friendly' behaviour as much on adults in general as the children's parents.


I disagree. I reserve the right to my freedom of expression although I do not wish to unknowingly influence a child by exercising that right. Other adults have an equal right to respond appropriately or even f@ck off if what I have to say tests the boundaries of their good taste.

What I want to know is what mature sums are. Do they add up to 69?

True. It's a temporary additional source of income for them.

As I see it, the whole plan is to squeeze adult content off the grid. Increasing the tier charges for adult content providers is one facet of this plan. Increasing the price for Adult land by limiting the supply is another facet.

There's more. As Winter points out, the customer base is being isolated from the content providers. Businesses on Adult land will lose NPIOF customers. Businesses on Mature land lose Adult customers, and also risk being AR'd for zoning violations.

Searching for adult content becomes more chancy, as content providers delete "adult" key words from their descriptions.

I ain't sure, but they're awful hard for me when I do em.