Why do people not report underage operating on the grid?

The pants! Think about the pants! XD

Of course... The ULTIMATE way to avoid online pedophilia is to keep your distance from any and all avatars that look like this:



Because, that's EXACTLY what some kids prefer their avatars to look like. (Teen grid picture, by the way) =^-^=

Holy sh . . . . . !

Which is why no one should be in SL, that hasn't read the rules, or hasn't clicked "I agree," or is under 18, I guess. Letting a kid just roam around SL isn't a good thing. Also no one's supposed to be using anyone else's account so I just lost count of how many infractions that would be. Lol.



I guess one can't disagree with what one hasn't read but I'm not sure what the point you were trying to make there was?

I can certainly accept this in principle. I'm just not sure what the criteria for a decision NOT to AR might be, and how we could possibly know enough RL information to apply those criteria.

No no no! It's *much* more complicated than that! There is NO Age Of Consent for the USA. Instead it's governed by each state as follows:
http://www.4parents.gov/sexrisky/teen_sex/statelaws_chart/statelaws_chart.html
State
Age of Consent

Minimum age of victim (age below which a person is not legally allowed to have sex)
Age differential between the victim and defendant (if the difference between the two ages is greater than this number then sex would not be legally allowed)
Alabama 16 12 2
Alaska 16 N/A 3
Arizona 18 15 2 (defendant must be in high school and less than 19)
Arkansas 16 N/A 3 (if victim is less than 14)
California 18 18 N/A
Colorado 17 N/A 4 (if victim is less than 15), 10 (if victim is less than 17)
Connecticut 16 N/A 2
Delaware 18 16 N/A
District of Columbia 16 N/A 2
Florida 18 16 N/A
Georgia 16 16 N/A
Hawaii 16 14 5
Idaho 18 18 N/A
Illinois 17 17 N/A
Indiana 16 14 N/A
Iowa 16 14 4
Kansas 16 16 N/A
Kentucky 16 16 N/A
Louisiana 17 13 3 (if victim is less than 15), 2 (if victim is less than 17)
Maine 16 14 5
Maryland 16 N/A 4
Massachusetts 16 16 N/A
Michigan 16 16 N/A
Minnesota 16 N/A 3 (if victim is less than 13), 2 (if victim is less than 16)
Mississippi 16 N/A 2 (if the victim is less than 14), 3 (if the victim is less than 16)
Missouri 17 14 N/A
Montana 16 16 N/A
Nebraska 16 16 N/A
Nevada 16 16 N/A
New Hampshire 16 16 N/A
New Jersey 16 13 4
New Mexico 16 13 4
New York 17 17 N/A
North Carolina 16 N/A 4
North Dakota 18 15 N/A
Ohio 16 13 N/A
Oklahoma 16 14 N/A
Oregon 18 15 3
Pennsylvania 16 13 4
Rhode Island 16 14 N/A
South Carolina 16 14 Illegal if victim is 14 to 16 and defendant is older than victim
South Dakota 16 10 3
Tennessee 18 13 4
Texas 17 14 3
Utah 18 16 10
Vermont 16 16 N/A
Virginia 18 15 N/A
Washington 16 N/A 2 (if victim is less than 12), 3 (if victim is less than 14), 4 (if victim is less than 16)
West Virginia 16 N/A 4 (if victim is less than 11)
Wisconsin 18 18 N/A
Wyoming 16 N/A 4

California is 18, as you even posted. LL is in California. Therefore it doesn't change the truth of my statement. Also, there is a US law about 18 and older relating to adult content. I just don't know the number off-hand. The latter is what I was referring to.

Nope, I'll AR anyone I believe beyond a reasonable doubt to be under age.



Strongly disagree



Oh HELL no!



Why should we be anymore inappropriate then we are now?



Keep 'em off the grid.

SL by definition is *not* a game. It is a platform.

But, I'm not in CA, and therefore I'm fine by ignoring it.



Please to link it?

But LL is not fine in ignoring it, which is why it is in their ToS, which you agree to upon joining. Therefore it is binding to you, just as it is to anyone else.

A "Contract by Adhesion" is not binding, and even if it were, as Daniel stated, I am neither required, nor compelled to enforce their rules.

I never referred to enforcing their rules. I said abide by their rules. There is a difference. Also, if you read my earlier post that you quoted, you will see that I also said we aren't obligated to be their police force, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't AR when we see the ToS being violated.

Internet Laws are enforced nationally. California is in the United States, therefore the highest age of consent in the United States is 18.

18 and 19 are teens too. Unfortunately most of them act like 14. Some exceptions though; the nicest ones I've encountered transferred from the teen grid when they hit the SL Menudo Age.

Not true. Please keep your misinformation to yourself.

I find this view interesting. Second Life - at least the main grid - is an adults-only venue. It is published pretty clearly all over the official website (or at least used to be) and in press releases that SL is strictly 18+. Now, given that kind of publicity about it being adults-only, how many pedophiles are honestly lining up to get in? Think about it: If you were a pedophile on the prowl, would you hang out in your town's business district or in bars? Or would you hang out around schools and playgrounds? Given that the main grid is 18+, and there is a Teen Grid just next door, I would think the pedophile population on the main grid would be rather low. Child Avatars != RL Children. You actually face a higher risk of incrimination associating with a adult avatar who turns out to be a RL child, than you do by associating with child avatars. A real-life child gaining access to Second Life's main grid "illegally" (a term I use *very* lightly, as there are NO real-world laws forbidding minors from accessing Second Life's main grid) is far more likely to assume an adult appearance (and attempt to take on an adult demeanor) on the grid rather than a childlike appearance and demeanor.

And if the presence of child avatars bothers you, then just stay clear of them. If one gets "into your face", then just handle it as you would any other form of harassment and carry on.

When all is said and done, however, you have a right to your opinions on the matter, and I respect that. As long as your opinion does not infringe upon, interfere with, or harass the rights of others to carry out legitimate and legal forms of play such as roleplaying a child in a non-sexual setting, then we're all good here.

You know, I was just thinking to myself that I hadn't seen Brenda rip off her skirt and wave it in salute in a while...

WOW! There's quite a few states where the 22 year age gap in my marriage would STILL be illegal? (O.o)

Meh... We met when I was 17... Our law breaking days were over rather quickly. =^-^=

Put it back into context. This was in comparison to all sorts of horrible things if an AR isn't filed the instant one has grounds for believing someone is under age.

What does an AR make more likely to occur? What does not filing an AR (or waiting a day or a few weeks) make more likely to occur?

For the ones who don't know any better, they may go to the teen grid. For the ones who are just messing around, they'll either give up or go to a friend's house and sign up again. For the ones who are desperate, they might figure out a way to get back in, or they may go someplace else. If they go some other place that's specifically for teens, they may be in more danger - after all, the predators are going to go where the teens are. Or they may go some place that's for adults, but where they can get in and may or may not have the same atmosphere as here.

As for the rest of the question, if it were ever to get to that point, they'd know my RL age, more or less. Damn few kids would have any interest at that point. They'd also know that my sex activities within SL are extremely limited, and that I don't go around looking for cybersex. In other words, they'd know enough not to be offended. It's also an excellent opportunity to say "I know it's difficult, but you need to stop focusing on sex until after you deal with all these other issues." Finally, that might well be the point that an AR is called for.

But to be honest, I can only think of one case I've encountered that was anywhere close to this. It was a college student (over 1 who desperately needed to be talked into staying in school, instead of selling himself. I had no reason to think him under 18, and hence no reason to even consider an AR. If he had been, then maybe I would have allowed him 2-3 weeks before filing it. But first he would have gotten a pointer to gay youth services wherever he was thinking of going.

While I appreciate the information, and I often correct people when they say otherwise, Age of Consent isn't the issue here because RL sex isn't the issue.

Furnishing harmful materials to a minor is the main legal issue. I don't know of any state-by-state summary, but my guess is that the age is more likely to be 18 across the board. Furthermore, it's also going to be a federal issue. Unlike age of consent, this is also more likely to require knowing the age of the recipient. It's also going to be highly dependent on the specific material; SL as a whole doesn't make it.

This entire argument needs to be put back into context vis-a-vis this issue, which has been contested long before this thread was started. And as often as I've heard this issue discussed, I can say that I've never heard this particular argument before - the notion that kids should be allowed to remain in SL lest they do something drastic like kill themselves over being banned. Such an obvious appeal to emotion is probably the worst argument one could make, in terms of supporting your position on this matter. It's similar in my experience to escalations in arguments over which martial art is better, which invariably devolve into ever more ridiculous scenarios that this or that martial art could never prepare you for (but MY martial art could), such as walking down the street with your wheel-chair bound girlfriend when you're suddenly ambushed by 12 ninjas with Uzis. Granted, Judo probably couldn't help in that scenario, but that's okay because IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

You're proposing, essentially, that whoever-it-was who "met this poor kid" wants us to believe some stranger suddenly showed up and smacked him in the face all at once with this deep moral dilemma, forcing him to make a choice whether to support LL's rules or ignore them. Further, am I to understand that the people who oppose ARing the underaged only do so in extreme cases like this? Because that's not the impression I got from at least a couple of them.



An AR makes a banning more likely to occur. And again, this is the first time I've ever heard an anti-AR proponent argue that they're only suggesting holding off for a short amount of time.



There may be more danger; or there may be less. There will certainly be fewer adult strangers discussing sex with them on the internet.



What about the adverse consequences? They suddenly disappear? Suddenly aren't as important? Where's your arbitrary threshold, and why is it so superior to mine?



That's great, but since he was over 18 it has nothing to do with anything in this thread.

There is no need to explain the obvious.

The primary reason for increased risk of regulatory intervention by legislators, and litigation by authorities and individuals are that ANY depiction of child like avatars in adult/sexual situations can incriminate the resident according to the legislation in some countries.

Secondary child avatars adds an increased risk of media exposure that can significantly impact Linden Lab and resident businesses if the child avatar (regardless of RL age) is involved in an adult/sexual situation exactly because the depiction element acts so strong in the media.

Quite honestly I see much more SL media coverage about it being a general cybersex and gambling paradise (which, of course, doesn't exist anymore after the gambling policy - sure!). There were a few "reports" by "journalists" like on Fox or Sky News, but lately it has been a non-topic (if you don't count some nutcases like Prok and Lias as "media coverage". One reason for that is, that the kid avatar community itself deals very quickly with this topic - because they know that a single incident that becomes public *will* result in a big outcry from the "OMG SAVE THE KIDS!" hysterics.

LL doesn't see a reason to forbid kid avatars. However, LL saw a reason to install a new adult content policy to protect their business and SL's image. Something to think about...

Good point. The kid av "hysteria" is in mainly in these forums and the undies of the extremist nutters.

Most who choose to ban them on their own land do it with out the mudslinging.

Funny to see this discussion, where the answer to the OP is quite simple.

Not all of us are against teens on the grid. Though I would prefer SL to remain 18+, incidental teens behind an avatar do not bother me the least. Why would it? There is more porn on the internet then in SL. Chances of a teen to find disturbing stuff is bigger on the internet (world wide web, newgroups) then within SL. And some parents actually are aware of that fact

But in the end it all comes down to this: NO ONE is required to AR someone else for violating the TOS. Griefers I would report if I am griefed. Addfarmers I would report if they are in my sim and harassing me with particle spewing stuff. Both I might report if they happen to grief a friend of mine, in order to support their AR. Sellers of ripped stuff I would always report if I run into them, as they hurt business, and I create content myself.

But I refuse to roam the grid in order to find and report TOS offenders. Frankly, I think that kind of behavior is kind of sad.
The same way I refuse also to report anything that I do not have a problem with, simply because someone does not obey the TOS. That is their responsibility, not mine. And again, not everyone feels that a 16 year old gets seriously harmed by roaming the grid.