Does Identity Verification mean ban for all home sexual interacts??

Don't you mean "skillz"?

I remember lots of semi-naked people at music concerts. Of course, we're not talking Mozart, more like Metallica. And I can't remember some of the Grateful Dead concerts at ALL, for which I should probably be grateful myself, as I can only assume there was plenty of nudity.

I remember the last symphony I went to. Women were sitting on guys shoulders lifting their tops every time the fat lady hit a high note. We bounced a beach ball around and held up lit cigarette lighters at intermission, and then ended up sleeping in a puddle in the parking lot.

Ahhh....Good times.

Hey, was that the Boston Philharmonic "Britney Does Beethoven" concert? Dude, I was there! I think I might have tripped over you in the parking lot.

that may just happen, if it does, i personyl do not see why they are soo worried abotu it, i mean, you think a 16 yer old would have seen a nude body by now, its like parents are protecting their kids from the human (beep) body!

but yea, this is the day SL dies, im calling the california BBB, becasue this is getting out of hand

hell i may call the FBI or somthing, this is identity theft!

That explains why I had one of your shoes stuck to my butt when I tp'ed home.

lol , i bet it was a steel toed boot, lol, that probley hurt

It is probably hard for Lindens to now re-change the policy.

What we can do, I suggest, is to offer them better option.

I am suggesting a thing that could do what Linden wants to do with this new Policy, and I want you to share your opinions by posting comments, and give this suggestion a good number of votings.


Please Take a look at the link below for my suggestion.
https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/VWR-2525



I am only asking for a compensational offer from Linden with more configurable options, in exchange to forcing us their point of views.

Nah I wore 5 inch stilettos back then....

Well, the USA is a pretty huge place and I am sure has all shades of opinion on "morality" from extreme permissiveness to extreme puritanism.
The same can be said of Europe (I have holidayed in more than one southern European resort where, while the English and Germans might go topless, the locals would not dream of doing so and are rumoured to think we are a bunch of slappers)
The same can be said of SL.

Arguing endlessly about whose country is the most uptight gets us nowhere. The important thing, IMHO, is to stand up and fight for the rights and freedoms which we care about, whether that is in our rl countries ...

http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/

... or in sl.

So, the question I would like to ask is ... is there anything we can do about this except for grumbling on the forum?

What is the likelihood of enough people simply refusing to comply and making the whole thing unworkable?

The "SL'ers against age verification" group sent round a disclaimer somebody had written as an alternative to flagging their adult themed parcel - how likely is this to be seen as an acceptable way of taking "moral, legal and social responsibility", and so a valid defense against possible AR's?

What about more visible protests (mass nude demos ... fire setting ... mass turn-each-other-in days ... ) have these ever worked for anything in the past?

It would be good to hear from you sl old-timers what strategies have worked in the past (any?) and from adult-themed business owners with their ears to the ground.

A good post spinster! I'd been wondering what the last two to three pages had to do with SL myself.

Your thought on turn-your-neighbour-in or mass nude rallies to demonstrate against LL policy is personally dangerous to each and every participant. Any one participant would run the risk of being banned. I don't think there is a 'safety in numbers' here.

The Open Letter I gather had a limited success, a petition 'signed' by a large number of the populace to a carefully laid out and worded declaration.

As for SL oldie, I am coming up to my first year and have seen changes in both the Client and LL rules. At a quick glance the new agreement seemed even more of 'this is ours: you use it at our discretion'. Maybe I'm wrong but that's my assumption.

So, like someone else said, I'm going with the flow. Personally I don't think the sky is falling.

The only thing that would get LL to notice in my opinion would be to stop them from getting money (downgrading accounts to premium, stop buying L$ from LL, not buying any land from LL, converting L$ to real $) but would that work?

I'm afraid that the answer would be "No" because there would be some problems:

- most players don't visit this forum and even with all the other forums combined (including all the different language ones) we would only reach approx. 5% of all users max in my opinion. How do you reach the rest?
- from the comments in the Blog you can see that part of the community have no problems with this and in fact even welcome it
- selfishness and greed ..... some people will not be able to resist all the bargains that will come up (cheap land in LL auctions, freefalling exchange rates, etc.)

LL might even like that and then sell SL to Disney and the Standard avas will be Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck.

Today we sadly live in a society that more and more takes the view "If I'm not bothered why care" and those that do care tend to be ignored.

In Germany an author wrote during the nazi-regime (roughly translated):

"When they came to get the communists I wasn't bothered because I was no communist,
When they came to get the mentally ill I wasn't bothered because I wasn't mentally ill,
When they came to get the jews I wasn't bothered because I was no jew,
When they came for me there wasn't anyone left to bother anymore."

or how is the english saying? "United we stand, divided we fall."

If any action taken was to be noticed by LL the community would have to stand together as one or at least all the people spending real money would have to do so but I'm afaraid that won't happen.

I thought this prolly was the case (be fun tho! hehe)



So, there is possible mileage in this idea?

I'm not an old-timer, but I'm not sure that anything from the past would be applicable now. SL is now to big to mobilise a significant percentage of the population.


I suggest that public ridicule would be the best response.
LL are doing this purely for PR reasons.
Destroy the benefit of the PR by publicising the fact that any minor can verify themselves and/or verify their dog as a human adult in a few minutes using this broken online one-step verification system.

I don't see how this verification system can be used as a better legal defence than 18+ assertion if it is widely publicised that the verification is completely ineffective.

The only response that the promoters of the system could be that minors should not enter forged details. If that's a defence, then it is equally valid to say that minors should not affirm that they are 18+.
I suspect however that neither would be accepted as a defence in a loony-toons court. It could be that Integrity are just working the numbers. The estimate that payouts on fines for sales to minors will be comfortable exceeded by revenue gathered from adult-themed Net businesses requiring a fig-leaf.



I think that the introduction of this verification is set in stone by LL. Nothing we do is going to stop it. Logic or reasonability does not get a look in. They don't listen for anything but good news.

However, it's worth ridiculing the thing as widely ans intensely as possible in the hope that they and others might be dissuaded from introducing similarly broken and self-serving mechanisms.


The thing is a lie. Destroy the lie.
The king is naked.

Mephisto, Pastor Niemoller's beautiful poem is grossly overused. In this instance it's deplorable. To compare what happened in Nazi Germany to anything that occurs on SL is absurd.

I get irritated and downright angry at many of the decisions made by LL, however, in the end I am always aware that they are a private company making decision regarding their product. They make stupid ones. They may make decisions that will cost them customers. Neither of those can compare to fascist governments.

That tactic is also invokes Godwin's Law. Yes, comparing the actions of a video game developer to teh Nazis is deplorable. Often I think The Providers make idiotice decisions, this current scheme will probably cause me to limit time and money spent in world and maybe leave all together, but no one is forcing any of us to be hee. We are free to go at anytime if we don't like the restrictions the Lindens place on their program.

Well, the argument is that since it is a step "beyond" what other websites do (ie, the pr0n ones), that it therefore is something "extra" that LL is doing, and therefore should provide them at with the argument that it is an additional shield. In addition, from LL's perspective, it appears that they have obtained an indemnity from the third party, which means that any liability from miscues will have been passed to the third party, and are no longer borne by LL at the end of the day.



This I think is correct as well. The best protest against it is to pull your money and assets from SL, because that is the only thing that will "hurt" LL. But ... I don't think many people will do that, and this is the judgment that LL's business team has made together with LL's lawyers. I agree that ridiculing may shed light on the issue, but unless and until LL is hit below the belt on this one, nothing will change.

Just a bit of lateral thinking...

But is seeing a computer generated models going through staged poses really "R" rated material? Going by the Entertainment Software Rating Board guidelines you might be able to argue it's "Mature 17+" but really "Adults Only?" that's more for the extreme graphics or snuff scenes I'd have though.

So if I stick by my interpretation of the given ESRB codes, I don't need to flag my parcel as a danger to minors because in my opinion a couple of pose balls doesn't equal an AO rating.

http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp

They're using the MPAA system, not the ESRB. Per the MPAA, any nudity that is "sexual" (which is certainly *any* nudity around the poseballs you're referring to) is "R".

Well actually no. In the most recent blog post we were referred to the ESRB and the MPAA systems for reference.

SecondLife is not a movie! The graphics and images are not nearly as vivid as real life actors with good SFX teams. So it seems unrealistic to apply those guidelines.

The ESRB system is for computer and video games so seems much more applicable, and as I pointed out. The pair of pose balls in a house in SL "may contain sexual content." I mean it's not like you log in. Bang away with your nude avatar for 24 hours shouting swearwords in chat. Well I don't

And another point. In a one player video game the player is guided towards the scenes which may contain a sexual nature by the game plot. In SL your average dwelling may have ban lines, security orbs or other ways of keeping curious wanderers out. If someone really does choose to watch a couple on a pose ball set using camera motion from 100's of meters away that's them "seeking out material" rather than the couple trying to display it. It would seem more appropriate to ban the peeping tom than the couple on private land.

It all just seems quite unworkable really!

According to SL, both are offered as examples of what is to be flagged. If it flunks either the AO standard or the R rating, it needs to be flagged. That seems to be the plain meaning of the blog post, and since I think the R rating is "lower" than the AO rating, effectively we're looking at the R rating as the yardstick in most cases.



Yes but they're not doing it that way. They're approaching the issue from the other way around, namely the landowner. Sucks, but there it is. Pretending the system is otherwise than how LL is explaining it is a waste of type.

Soooo, let me get this straight. The spastic motions of a pair of badly animated avatars, flopping around in a computer game running at 12 FPS is deemed in some way offensive - as opposed to merely comical?

Here's a thought for all those who condone or administer censorship:

EDUCATE your children. Whether you have the balls to face it or not, the chances of your kids becoming involved in something potentially 'offensive' is increased greatly if you pretend that sweet little 14 year old Timmy has never thought about naked girls. Stop passing on the idea that the human body is something we should be embarrased about.

In fact, as we're talking 13+, can anyone cite me a single case of a 13 year old viewing a virtually simulated sexual act and being HARMED by it? To try and suggest a 13 year old would do anything but IM his/her friends whilst giggling inanely is to argue that day is night.

It's probably quite obvious how I personally view SL cybering, but mocking it derisively is by no means the same as feeling that people shouldn't be allowed to express themselves in this manner. It's simple roleplay and nothing more. As for other 'sexual' content, it's no worse than anything you'll find within seconds of typing a naughty word into google.

Hey, he might be thinking about naked boys.

Theres also a rule that anytime something becoems more restrictive that Quote has to be repeated at LEAST 33 times.

Ohh please. Not every 13 year old is going to consider cyber sex as funny.

The whole tone of your post is like that - you seem to imply all adults will find pixel/cybersex silly.

Just becuase you seem to find it silly - doesnt mean it is to everyone.

Just becuase you would have giggled in IMs with your friends about it at 13, doesnt mean everyone would have.


------------------
And welcome to Alt posting -

The Idea that anyone would quit lurking to just make the POST you made - is what is hard to believe.