How to keep underagers out of my club?

I agree with this, but would add IDV isnt responsible either.

If so (which might be possible) then they are just walking down the same path as before ..

They are thinking they are fine - until some news agencies decide to do some "exposes" on Second Life. They wont care who is "legally liable"

Then we will be in for another set of knee-jerk reactions.

But they are responsible for that minor accessing an adults only service where they bought the stuff. At least they should be. But we know they don't want to be responsible for Anything except collecting their payments, which at times they can't even do that properly. So you are probably right, use whatever there is available to CYA, becuase they sure won't be of any help to you.

I am verified (out of curiosity more than any real interest in participating in this farce).

Most of my Canadian friends cannot verify. A few of my UK friends could verify in a technical sense, but are prohibited by UK law. One of my dearest friends cannot verify, period.

I will not be setting my land to adult-verified. If any outraged parents wish to sue me for the actions of their dear children, they are welcome to - and I will ask them if I get to have their darling progeny do chores for me, since I am apparently now their mommy.

It'll be fun.


Nothing makes one "sue-proof", especially not in the current culture. And I will not impede my friends' ability to come to the islands I share with my partner in order to attempt to become so.

If LL would bite the bullet and dump the Teen Grid, open up the Main Grid to all and sundry regardless of age, then I would understand LL's standpoint re: landowner responsibilities. If that is the eventual direction of SL (a Teen/Main merger) then yes, certainly, it would be the landowner's responsibility to ensure that kids don't enter "inappropriate" property, just as it is in RL.

If, however, LL will never merge the Main and Teen grids, then this whole IDV is just silly, as LL has already stated that all users of the Main grid must be over 18, and it is therefore LL's responsibility to maintain. As seen by all the people who fake verified, this current IDV thing isn't working and won't work, especially for international folks. In SL's current manifestation, the landowner is NOT responsible for enforcing adult only entry on mature parcel; LL is responsible for enforcing adult only entry into the Grid itself.

I agree that it's bullshit, but it is what you agreed to when you accepted the TOS.

*If* the only announcement is going to be this knowledge base thing and LL is never going to officially tell people the system even is fully functional ...

There is no real incentive for most people to use the system, other than their own conscious and fear of liability.

For most adult content on the grid it simply wont be used.

I can imagine there will be places that sell modest vintage lingerie reproductions which require adult verification ..

While Escort brothels offering voice and cam sex do not.

also did they fix the height of the access restriction?

Or should all adult content be on the ground level .. and doesn't that seem backwards?

Hey, I don't know anything. I'm just someone thinking about selling a few of the bondage devices my twisted imagination has been concocting so Ive been reading a bunch about it coz I know minors can access the grid and I am a CYA enthusiast.

Maybe its not been announced officially coz LL still is trying to work the bugs out (April Fool! ). One of the reasons I did look into it so much was I was concerned about the height restriction thing too, but there is no info on that aspect of the system.

But everything is in place for an announcement to BE made and for it to impact SL greatly.

Maybe they really are just waiting for the next SkyNews story so it can look like LL is as innocent as Microsoft providing you with the web browser that your kid uses to access interwebz p0rn. "We just provide the service, it's those sickos at Xcite making penises readily available for your minor! Go after them, not us!!"

Any way you slice it, IDV is quietly moving forward.

Ignorantia juris non excusat.

I just don't get how they can post a "rule" like that in some obscure place on their website and expect business owners to guess that it's there and where it is. And by posting it, it absolves them of the responsibility and puts it on us.

I had no idea that button existed until I opened up the club to non-members yesterday. I'm finding that plenty of people who are age-verified still can't get into the club and I'm pissing off more folks than attracting. There are many, many people who have not age verified.

I may be wrong about this, but when I had the land set for members only and had checked "must have payment info on file", if a person joined the club and didn't have the info on file, the land still let them in. I guess being in the group overrides the info requirement? Does that mean if I check the age verification and resume a members-only access, the group membership will trump age veri and allow non-verified people into the land as long as they are group members?

Well, that's a real good question. To the extent I can decipher https://support.secondlife.com/ics/support/KBAnswer.asp?questionID=4799, it looks like Group members can get into age-restricted parcels that allow group access regardless of whether they're ID Verified. (I know that unverified group Owners and Officers with some Ability or other can get in to group-owned restricted parcels, even if group access hasn't been specified.)

Now, one can test this till hell freezes over, though, and still not know for sure what is intended, because there's ample evidence that some folks who've done the ID verification thing can get into some and not other age-restricted parcels, not relevant to any other group or individual access restrictions. So if the verified sometimes can't get in, it wouldn't be too surprising if the unverified sometimes *can*, erroneously.

I don't know if there's a jira open for this, or if it is better to just let sleeping dogs lie. When I read a blog announcement (http://blog.secondlife.com/2007/12/09/more-on-age-verification/) back in December, I got the sense that the whole thing was going so badly (especially the Aristotle/Integrity verification bit itself) that we should all just stay tuned till LL sorted it out. But re-reading that, indeed, it doesn't say anything about the "voluntary compliance" of landowners being any less of a responsibility--i.e., it doesn't say that everything is just on hold or in beta or anything.

(So, dumb question: If stores that sell prim bits, decorated with vastly not-to-scale models of perpetually aroused primni aren't explicit enough to warrant age verification, whatever would be? Not being a prude here, I just don't know where that line is supposedly drawn.)

There is no UK law prohibiting people from verifying. You just aren't protected by the European Data Protection Act if you give your details to a company who operate outside the remit of the act.

I agree with you Brenda. Also LL can say whatever they like in the TOS but that does not mean anything until that is tested in a law court. LL may in fact have more liability than they know when it comes to crunch time.