Why do people not report underage operating on the grid?

You are preaching to people who don't buy into the "OMG save the children!" hysterics and use their own brain to think and judge on individual cases instead.

I know that the american laws and how these laws are imposed are often lunatic - how about you, the adult americans, do something to change that instead of using a "duck and cover" approach? *I* will not risk the wellbeing of a teenager just because american society is going crazy with "OMG NIPPLES!". You, as american adults, can fight against injustice, crazy laws and out-of-their-mind judges and politicians. The (just for example, Kidd Krasner introduced this problematic nicely already) gay teen from the bible belt who is totally alone, gets beaten up in school and at home and lives in constant fear for being kicked out on the streets by his pillar-of-christian-morality-and-society parents can't.

I don't know anyone underage right now. If I again encounter one, I again will use my own brain to judge the person and the situation. You call this ludicrous? I call it ludicrous and superficial to *not* do this.

You just dont get it do you? This convo is over because of sheer....... whatever.

Your ignoring the law at everyones peril. wonderful.... you meet a underage in SL, you report it its that simple, there is NO if, ands or buts about it.

UnF believeable...... "rolleyes"

Ciera, show me the law that says I have to report an underage person on SL? Heck, show me the law that forbids an underage person to be on SL! TOS are no laws (and not even the TOS demand residents to AR other residents), I'm not on LL's payroll, and evolution or god or whatever gave me a brain to think for myself. I will make my own decision, based on guidelines like the TOS *and* my own ability to think and judge. No TOS, not even laws are suicide pacts. In my place of residence, even most judges use common sense. If in your place not, maybe you should work on changing that instead of duck&cover? "Oh what a shame that this poor person goes down the drain, but hey, it's the law, so be it!" Ignorance...

I'm just thinking of a bizarre scenario that happened next to my home a long time ago, but the same sort of thing could happen now.

I noticed someone had been standing next to my land, not moving, for a long time. When I cammed round to investigate, it appeared to be a naked boy. I was wondering about sending an AR but closer investigation revealed it was an adult man who was 'ruthed'!

I used to get lots of naked newbies hanging round near my home because there was very tacky sex shop next door, which is now long gone!

Daniel are you for real ?
I am wondering what qualifications do you have to "judge" the person or situation? "I again will use my own brain to judge the person and the situation. You call this ludicrous? I call it ludicrous and superficial to *not* do this."
Surely if you report the person for being in SL instead of helping them get to a location designed for their age group, they could be given the help there by ppl their age and who may have a better understanding of things than you do. Your example of a kid being bashed because of his sexual preferences you think him being in SL with adults would of helped him? I know of a boy in RL that had to deal with his parents not accepting his ways and many of his friends leaving him. It was other teens who helped him through the down times not other adults. Daniel stop trying to come across as a "big brother" or " best friend" to these kids, teens, young adults, juveniles, or any other label you want to give them. I dont know how old you are but Ill assume your an adult so act it and set an example. You can help and still AR them. I explain to the teens that they should not be in this part of SL that there is a teen grid some will go willingly some think its more fun in the adult as they feel they are more "mature" dont they all. Those that leave i still AR to be sure they do leave and reduce the risk of them being preyed upon by those who set out to groom kids.
Fact those who wish to groom kids look for those who feel no one will accept them

and when you make a judgment call, against the rules of a TOS you signed to play this game, and allow lil johnny and his sob story to stay in SL, and his momma finds out, and a shitload of people cop real charges cause the lil F'er lied to you for sympathy to play a game he had no business being in, are YOU prepared to repay the possible monetary loses to the people you KNOWINGLY allowed him access to by not reporting him? I have THOUSANDS of USD tied up in this game in various projects and if Lil Johhnys momma busted him here, and i found out you KNEW he was a minor, i'd hold you JUST as responsible, especially if i was lied to and you KNEW the truth.

This isn't a questions of morals, or opinions of American law, this is a statement of FACT about the game that states.. no one under 18 period. If YOU don't like that fact, YOU leave. You have ZERO right to subject the thousands of other people legally playing this game to your personal judgment calls. I have many *kids* in SL,(all adults RL)that make up my *SL* family. One of my daughters in SL confessed to me she was 16 IRL.. and i told her.. sorry babygirl, i can not allow you to remain and put other people at risk. See you in 2 years if you want to come back, gave her an hour to say bye to her friends, and AR'ed her, and saw her poof. Did i LIKE doing it? no. I was attached to her after 6 months of being SL family, but MY personal feelings does NOT give me the right to put others at risk. Common sense. I don't care if they are 16 ans say their RL parents are in game.. i report them. The rules are the rules, bending them is breaking them, any way you look at it.

~Brie

Yes I am an adult, proven to LL (and not via the easily to cheat automatic system). And I actually worked in a RL place for kids and youths (including troubled ones). Would have been great to be able to get this 16yo SL friend into such a place to get help - sadly, this was not possible. Next best to do was to not take away from him the friendship and support he got in SL.

He survived the problematic time in his life and now is in a good and safe place. Would he be there if those close to him would have cut his lifeline because of some black&white thinking (wait, not thinking, acting)? Who knows. I like to think that the support he got from his friends in SL at least helped a tiny bit. Sending a mindless AR would have not helped at all.

Show me the part of the TOS that tells me "you have to report other residents".



Me too. What's that now, "mine is bigger than yours"? But here we might find the problem:



SL isn't a game to me.

I also work with troubled ppl of all ages and I would still not allow a CHILD to be in a place where the rules state you must be over 18. What a great lesson you taught this boy dont bother following the rules do what you like and stuff the rest of us.
I am sure you are away of grooming and with your attitude you are making it an open door for such by allowing kids to be in a place not suited for them. But to put it another way you signed so to speak on the dotted line to follow the TOS the point i wish to bring your attention to is the following" Users under the age of 18 are prohibited from accessing the Service other than in the area designated by Linden Lab for use by users from 13 through 17 years of age (the "Teen Area"." You have a moral obligation to protect a child you failed. HOw would you feel if a child you knowingly allowed to remain in SL was groomed ?

What a load of crap. For a start, the reference to the ToS is irrelevant as none of us signed on the dotted line, "so to speak", that we would report any ToS violations that we come across. Secondly, the discussion with Daniel isn't about a child (we've been through that before). Finally, the person in question (not Daniel) broke the SL rules so your beef is with him and not with Daniel. But why you have a beef at all over this is beyond me. It doesn't make any sense other than rules, rules, rules (not even laws as there has been no mention of any U.S. laws being broken). It's much too cold and unrealistic an attitude.

SL is, be definition, a game. And no, its not a point of mine is bigger than yours, far from it.

The difference is, in fact, that when i, and seems 99.9% of the other people here, have encountered ANYONE that admits to being a minor on the ADULT grid, We have AR'ed them. our personal opinion of their right to be here is moot, since, as it is pointed out here :



They have NO business being here. Weather i think a specific *underage* person is the exception to the rule or not is irrelevant. It's a TOS. and when you clicked the little radio button that says *I AGREE*, you did, in fact sign on the dotted line.

Again (I think for the 3rd time in this thread) I ask to be shown the point in the TOS or CS where it says that with signing up to SL I have to report others for any TOS or CS violations.

You want to be absolutely sure no underage person can encounter you? Take it up with LL and demand from them to install a (working!) mandatory age verification for *everyone*.

Sorry, Brieanne, but nobody signed to agree that we would report any ToS violations that we come across. You're barking up the wrong tree with that argument.

THIS!!!

Daniel wins this thread with his sensible approach.

For the record: NO ONE did sign an agreement to AR whatever. Hell, I pay LL for a service I am getting, they should protect me from anything against the TOS, not the other way around. I cannot recall LL paying me to be their interwebs police.

If I have enough reason to suspect someone is underage, I'll AR them. Someone who doesn't respect the TOS's provisions in that area can just as easily think nothing of violating them in other areas and become a griefer, for instance. I'm not going to be wearing a child av and going around hanging out with RL children. That's a bit squicky.

Seems you are the one not getting it Ciera.

Who is ignoring the law? Am I ignoring the law for not reporting an offender, or is the offender ignoring the law? Since when do YOU set the rules what or who I have to report? Who put you in charge? As long as you are NOT in charge, I have no "report duty". And there is no if, and or but about THAT.

I can answer that as Ciera doesn't seem to understand. Nobody is ignoring the law. The 16 year old was ignoring the *rule*, and rules are not laws. Nobody else was ignoring any rules or laws.

There's plenty of sex and nudity to be had on the Teen Grid anyway. Just... More discrete and their cooters are on the pants layer. (^_^)y

Common parlance has it that 'ageplaying' describes the practice of adults assuming the role of children and, by extension, they are described 'ageplayers'. The term may be qualified as 'regressive ageplaying' which describes a generalised attempt to recreate the childhood experience or 'sexual ageplaying' which describes a fetish for engaging in sexual activity with a childhood theme.

The term may have been popularised within SL but it is by no means defined by its usage in SL, where ageplayers means 'sexual ageplayers' and child avatars mean 'regressive ageplayers'. Like other phenomena such as 'lag' for instance, many residents have no idea in truth what they are talking about or they are simply being lazy in their usage.

The Lindens have made a gross error of judgement by encouraging use of the term 'child avatar' in place of 'ageplayer'. Mixing of RL children and adults on the Grid is inevitable and the currently popular use of 'child avatar' will only cause further confusion in that event.

There's far too much bullsh!t dripping off this issue already.


Mom and Dad and their little gal need their IP asses banned.


Splitting hairs over age variations is dangerous since the legal status of 'child' is very pertinent in discussions of this nature. Most international conventions and agreements rely on the definition of a child as being anyone under the age of 18. In some documentation, the World Health Organization even stretches the age to 19 in its differentiation between infants (< and adolescents (9-19).

A limit of 18 is reasonable as far as I'm concerned: for every precocious 16 year-old there is an immature 20 year-old but we have to draw the line somewhere.


!!? How do you know that?

I don't think the issue is whether or not teens should be exposed to or engaged in sexual activity per se. They WILL be, whether we like it or not. The issue is WHOM they are engaging in it with. The teen grid doubtless makes possible various forms of heavy-duty flirtation and even outright cybering, but there it is presumably with other teens. On the main grid, it would be with adults.

Two sixteen year-olds going at it on the teen grid is frankly pretty natural. A sixteen year-old being led through her paces on the main grid by a 40 year-old, on the other hand, is sexual exploitation.

I already agreed that I was probably splitting hairs, so I agree with that part, but I don't agree that it is dangerous in this case. I consider 16 to be 'young adult' - adult, but without a great deal of experience - the same applies to 18 year olds, 20 year old, and 20+ year olds. 16 year olds, and younger, are old enough to marry and have children of their own, among other things, so they have to be seen as adults, and not "child". They cannot be described as "child" except in the law, and inasmuch as we are all children of our parents, regardless of our ages. There is no danger in it. A person doesn't become an adult on their 18th birthday - people don't suddenly change on that date. The law concerning them suddenly changes, but people don't suddenly change.

If I've understood things correctly concerning the 16 year old of this discussion, then he had some *very* adult concerns and decisions to make, and he was making them; i.e. being an adult - not a child.

perhaps we run in different circles. i do not regularly encounter pedos grooming kids in sl. if youre really worried about pedos go police the teen grid.

Phil you seem to be making a lot of suppositions about this 16 year old who you never met (and we're all getting only one side of the story here to begin with and have to take it on faith the person was even 16.)

I think you are missing the point in that the relevant part is that 16 in the eyes of the law in America is a minor. That's what is relevant and what pertains to the SL TOS, among other considerations.

I don't think that "Really Deep Thoughts" (TM Tori Amos) constitute adulthood. I was wondering what made the universe when I was 8 or so.

An adult messing with a 16 year old's mind (read: sexual relationship) is against the law in most places for a reason - experientially they are an infant compared to someone who is middle aged and the manipulation that can occur can damage their life forever.

You're missing the point.

It's not that they can't say they don't know the rules. They haven't said anything yet, so it's premature to critique it.

It's that you (or the previous poster) can't conclude that they disagree with the rules or that they're teaching their kids to break the rules if all they've actually done is to click yes without ever reading them. And even if they've read the rules thoroughly, you still can't conclude that they're teaching the kids to break the rules unless the kid is also aware of the rules.

I'm not defending the parent, just pointing out logical fallacies. You can say they did something wrong, you can hypothesize beyond that, but you can't draw conclusions that depend on whether they clicked through without reading or read and consciously chose to flout.

But Vania said precisely what you just said, Kidd - that they had to click a button claiming that they have read the rules.

Also "seen the rules" could simply mean they have seen it, including glanced at it long enough to scroll down and click "agree."

Either way they are responsible for what is in the contract.