Why do people not report underage operating on the grid?

Actually, she was 5: http://www.oddee.com/item_90966.aspx

In cases where it is suspected that one is on the grid inappropriately - as in under the age of 18 - and LL suspends the account, one is required to fax RL identification (ID, passport, etc.) to their office. If a parent would go that far to "verify" their kids account then they are, IMO, very unfit parents.

For most of human history, where 16 year olds were placed in such positions of authority and responsibility, the average age of a woman becoming a mother was 12, and the average life expectancy for a human living in those times was 32.

That's interesting, the OP answered his own question on page 3:



So he should be satisfied - those are the reasons most people give when they are reluctant to AR for being underage. They're also copouts in my opinion, but I'm happy to leave it at that.

Even so, why should a 16 year old waste years of their lives before they are considered adults? Just because we have extended the lifespan does not mean we should extend childhood.

Because life has become infinitely more complicated than it was in those days. In those days, neither maturity nor intellect were required to function in society. One only needed to be able to catch and kill a chicken, cook said chicken, and live off of what one could grow in her own garden. The boys were often sent off to war in the name of their liege and generally never returned home. It was a rough, brutal existence, and one had to "grow up" entirely too quickly just to survive.

It seems some of the posters are

a) ok with underage being on the grid because reporting them would be squealing on the neighbor / act as police for Linden Lab

b) feeling that 16 year is a better measure of maturity and therefore 16 yo should be allowed on the grid

My follow up question: Is it then safe to assume you want to open the grid to teens in general? In case where does one draw the line (13, 15, 16 ...)

Also, with genuine teens on the grid, would not adults behind teen avatars be highly inappropriate (we must assume teens would want to be teens also in SL)?

EDIT: Add to that, would not the consequence of teens on the grid be a complete removal of adult content?

No. I joined SL as an 18+ service. I do not want it to be otherwise.

I dare say that working in a coal mine or raising a crop and livestock are more complicated than today's life. I would put the maturity and intellect of any 16 year old from 1900 up against most 25 year olds in today's world. Sure the 25 year old might have more "book learning" but their work ethic and common sense will be far below the 16 year olds. Even the book learning might be suspect when you consider the 8th grade test used in 1895 Kansas. http://mwhodges.home.att.net/1895-test.htm

If in fact the child was under constant parental supervision, limited to PG areas or other areas known to the parent to be safe, and the parent quickly intervened if something unfortunate happened (such as an inappropriate IM), then I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that this is child neglect/abuse. That doesn't make it sensible or appropriate, nor does it mean that an AR would be inappropriate.

In other words, don't judge the parent based on what you know might happen, but on what the parent might believe could happen, combined with what constitutes "due diligence" on the parent's part. I wouldn't include reading these forums or searching for sex places as requirements for due diligence.

I can't parse this in a way that makes sense. To me, it reads that underage people are recruiting child avatars - which seems silly. What exactly is a link of recruitment?

I have similar problems with the base note, but I get the sense of what you're asking. Still, the details are confused.

We've been over this many times, and I have yet to see any cases of someone being charged for cybersex with someone under 18 when the adult didn't know that person was under 18, let alone serving time for it.


In fairness to Daniel, he didn't say he wouldn't AR. He said he'd decide based on the specifics of the case. Hauling out a case of 15 or 16 year olds acting with sensibility of 12 year olds isn't the same thing as an example of an isolated 16 year old just seeking some friendship.

I can't speak for Daniel's case, but I am familiar with the phenomenon of isolated, depressed gay teens going online looking for friendships. It's far more important to keep them from doing something really stupid - running away, making RL contact with people they met online, or worse - than to keep them away from an adult forum. Fortunately there are more alternatives now than back in the Usenet days (which is where I'd see this - 10 or more years ago).

There is a legitimate point here: Difficult as this may be for some people to believe, there can be circumstances where filing an AR on a 16yo in SL is not the healthiest thing to do for that 16 yo. You might think it's the safest for you or other adults, but that's a different point.

Thank you, that was exactly what I wanted to say.

Actually, I do judge the parent. You see, the parent is setting an example for the child, by knowingly/willfully breaking the rules by allowing their offspring onto a grid that is marked 18+. It is quite apparent that they disagree with the rules, so the rules are either to be ignored or should not be applied to them. Which is exactly what little precious is going to see and well, it'll bite the parents in the ass when the teen starts to rebel.

Also, even if LL's butt is covered, it will still put our favorite platform at risk from either public outrage from the "savez teh chilrenz" groups and further reactionary behavior from LL. So, they aren't even considering others in this issue.

Using due diligence is keeping the bratlings from the adult sites.. not logging them in because the place has a "PG area," so nothing will harm them. Especially sites that have private chats. No matter how much you trust your child, you should never trust completely anonymous strangers.

Also, due diligence wouldn't count in this case, because there is a teen alternative that the child should go to. Just because the parents want to keep an eye on little precious doesn't mean they can't if s/he is on the teen grid. Get the computer outta their bedrooms and watch them from their monitors.

In order to knowingly break the rules, they first must know the rules. Now perhaps they're setting a bad example by not teaching their kids to read and understand every ToS and EULA that they're asked to acknowledge, but you can't assume that they actually know the rules, let alone disagree with them.


If they're not aware of it, they can't be expected to consider it. Even if they were totally familiar with this argument, reasonable people disagree on whether or not this risk is real.


No, responsibility is keeping the kids from the adult sites. Due diligence means something else, specifically how much effort they need to invest in order to live up to that responsibility.

As for sites with private chat, presumably the teen grid has private chat, as do Yahoo, AIM, etc. I'm sure there are parents who won't allow their kids to participate in such things, but I can't imagine that being the norm.


Again, I think you're misunderstanding due diligence.

When they first made their account, the ToS where presented to them and they had to hit a buttom saying "I read and am in accordance to the ToS" (or something like that). They can't simply say now that they don't know the rules.

Then you haven't read the thread. I said that already.

/327/87/340883/3.html#post2568277

As for "sixteen year olds used to marry and raise kids," well do we want to live in the Middle Ages again? They do that in some places in the United States also, but it's usually not the recommended course of action.

Y'know, as for the story Ciera told, on second thought it could've been not only a grown person saying they are 15 or 16 in order to be part of some sick fantasy, but it might not necessarily have even been the same gender on display either. I'd consider the context.

both parties were prob 83 yr old bald men with bad comb overs who are overweight and typing with glee on their laptops in the nursing home.

This.

Chris, you are right that the definition of childhood is largely cultural: some social historians have argued that there really was no such thing as "childhood" in the modern sense at all until the dawn of the early modern age . . . say, the 16th or 17th centuries. But the development of "childhood" also wasn't arbitrary: it was a response to changing social conditions. If we define childhood now as ending at 18, it is because we live in a MUCH more complicated society that now requires this much time to educate and train our youth. To state only the most obvious element of this: high school in most countries now ends at 17 or 18, whereas before the 19th century, most children in the West were lucky to get any education past the age of about 12.

And, to reiterate what Melita has said, in the past things were different in ALL sorts of ways, and not just in this. Shakespeare's Juliet was (notoriously) 13, so, yes the Renaissance had more "liberal" attitudes about sex and age. They also had witch burnings, violent religious persecution, slavery, child labour, minimal democratic processes, and . . . need I go on? You can't just pick and choose bits and pieces from one culture out of isolation from everything else: everything in society is interrelated.

While I do read many threads here, I don't read them all. So I guess I did miss that post.

Now that is a scary thought and an image that I'd prefer to get out of my mind. LOL

And you both prove your hoplessly ignorant of the law and its fallout. Have a nice day. the sheer stupidity here is just to much to comprehend.

I know the 'pron' field front to back, I know the rules, the laws, and the fallout of not toeing the line. Letting a 16 year old, even if hes depressed, is NOT LEGAL in a adult situation, P E R I O D .
Theres no debate on that. NONE. In a court of law YOU lose, You have sex take a photo or SHOW adult material to a person under the age of 18 you go to jail. Just run searchs across your USA and you'll find plenty of such convictions.
I remember one, a person got 17 YEARS for taking 6 nude pics of his 15 year old girlfreind. He made the mistake of sharing it with friends, one who was butthurt she wasnt his so he turned them both in. This isnt made up its real. Sooooooooo
To argue against it just shows the mindset of a really warped and twisted mind.

wow..
just simply

WOW.

yet, as it is not to pleasent, its 100% legal. thus no threat to anyone.

Let's review:

First, as someone who coordinates mods for a major corp site forum, I echo what many other sites do: You AR, we check, we act based on evidence. Anyone can report someone out of a grudge or assumption. If it's assumed someone is a minor and not - as mentioned - someone foolishly roling outside their usual boundaries for kicks - it will be apparent to the GTeam. I have ARed people who I assumed were underage along with those who have claimed to be. You know the saying: kill em all and let god sort em out... this is what happens when we AR ;P The GTeam can see the chat AND the connections requesting a constant stream of information to download to PCs.

Second, let's be realistic, particularly for those who forgot what they did as a teen. Girls start at about 12 and boys start at about 15 *on the average* so yeah there's interest. Statistics in the 1970s were that most 15 year olds in the USA were not virgins. I dont know the statistics now; it was relevent to me back then

The decision to keep minors out bears legal implications if minors get through. SL can potentially be shut down. It is all our duties to AR those who reveal in chat that they're under age.

This has absolutely nothing to do with their avatar and how they APPEAR or the activity they pursue in SL within the boundaries of the TOS. We have dozens of recognized subcultures here, so let's all respect them whether we pursue their interests or not.

SL sex: how can you really judge a technique when all that's done is connect to a poseball? The age of someone having sex is not something you can determine here.

If someone is posting blatantly at an infohub wall, they're pretty stupid. At any rate, AR it and it will be removed AND the GTeam brought in to check this person's logs.

It is against the TOS to cause someone to violate the TOS. This means all participants of ageplay, vigilantes recruiting people to be vigilantes, and adults knowingly bringing minors into SL under ANY pretense (even for PG activity) are all liable.

No, if you dont know what the OP has or hasnt done, or has or hasnt had others do for them, one can't say anything either way about their conducting witch hunts against certain types of avatars in SL.

Re the thread topic: there IS something done and people DO report underage people all the time in SL.

Stalking strangers? Potentially against TOS. The GTeam will pursue them based on the AR and if the claim pans out they'll see it on the back end and act according to their own guidelines, which are legally sound and will serve to protect the integrity of LL and keep SL running and not shut down.

you want proof of the reasons things have to be kept seperate heres why...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d64_1253481655

- AZ - Couple Sues Wal-Mart for Calling Cops Over Bath Time Photos
This is what mass hysteria and moral panics do to people, they lose all common sense. How many people in this world, have photos of their kids, naked at bath time? If you have some, you better burn them, or this may be you next!


..........................................

Even though proved innocent after a year of trials, their lives are ruined.

People are crazy and the law is even worse. TO knowingly put others and SL at risk is ludicrous. but... im preaching to a brick wall. arent I?