New controversial kid-avs-in-Zindra thread!

First, I think Zindra's really boring. It's taken all the fun and turned it into a creepy fairground. I don't blame anyone for avoiding it.

Second, despite my critiques of child avs, they are scarce as hen's teeth and I can honestly say I have only seen them at a distance or being a nuisance in a mall. I don't go looking for them. Really, they can do what they want (within child limits) when they want on their terms in their land. I equate them with Gor - a role play that I don't understand and never will.

Third, if kids want to go to Zindra, I think it's the curious adult inside their skin that is interested. Real kids I have ever known would find Zindra repulsive. I know I would.

Adfarming is something you can't hide. It doesn't work unless it's out in the open. You can take adfarming private like you can gambling or pretend pedophilia.


It has already been addressed and banned. There's nothing more to do.

The "on going problem" is that you don't like child avatars. That's a you problem. Linden Lab can't fix that.

So how many "kid av" sized holes have you found in the middle of sims in Zindra? Zero?

One person obsessing about it on forums they don't even read does not constitute an "on going problem".

I'd add that Dakota has made a decent argument for his way of life in sl and I wish him luck. I really do think it's a pity he didnt "age" himself to 18. He sounds witty and maturely charming - both things that kids simply arent.

I also would like to add that "Voodoo Child" is one of teh very finest TechnoPunk offerings out there.

I think it's silly calling it a problem. But, it's against TOS, and that should be the end of that discussion.

Teen avies can enter zindra.
It was in the policy LL announced a couple of weeks ago.

There's a US law that essentially bans animated child pornography, which would apply to SL. It was struck down as unconstitutional.

There is a German law against it that stands. I believe LL's action to ban sexual ageplay with child avatars was in response to the German law, and no doubt other forces.

We as humans have a deep seated instinct to protect our children. In many people, this takes the form of also protecting images of children, which I feel is an overreaction, unless it can be shown that such images increases the incidence of harm to actual people.

But, it's against the TOS, so that question is academic.

Child avatars are not against the TOS, and Lias's suggestions are draconian, causing far more harm than the original problem (that child avatars can appear by accident in Zindra).

LL has spoken; child avatars are allowed in Zindra, as long as they're not engaging in proscribed behavior.

So why are we still talking about this?

BTW, he's right -- it does make the joke funnier.

Bingo. Imaginary problem solved. Case closed.

Dakota it is understood that you are not willing to make any sanctions unless they are forced upon you. Once LL realizes that this conversation will be mute (notice the lack of adfarm and bot threads since their ToS ban).

It does, we should laugh in her face, preferably wearing a fairy avatar

Awww - Jig!

*blushes*

I'm willing to make reasonable concessions. The root of "reasonable" being "reason" - a compelling example of which you and all your likeminded friends have yet to provide, insofar as why any concessions are necessary. You're boxing with ghosts.

Dakota: I think you should ask Lias to translate her messages to English if she wants you to respond to them. That last message of hers was completely incoherent.

[bratmode]only the last?[/bratmode]

Saying "I do not accept your reasons why my argument is invalid" when we could list them, like what to do about inventory, is not refuting our reply then. So our response stands.

I, for one, have already found Zindra in general to be blighted, boring, ugly, and very un-sexy. It has quickly become the crack addicted, chain smoking, street corner whore if the grid. (>_<

When it comes to adult content, I can and will name plenty of estate sims that deliver a FAR better experience. (^_^)

That said... Zindra, the honeymoon is over and you stink of used condoms. Kid avatar or not; you will be VERY hard pressed to find me there on purpose other than to support the NCI Infonode... Which maintains PG local guidelines by group policy default, by the way. (^_^)y

Please give us a link to where we can get instructions for migrating no transfer items in inventory to another account.

BTW, I am sure a few legal people might be sort of interested in that information ...

Maybe Lias is offering to buy us new copies of every item that will not transfer over? As well as custom last names if the current crop are not as good as the ones we have?

The thing I wonder when I see this sort of discussion, is how much sexual ageplay is actually going on? I mean, are we talking about something real, or only about what *could*, *maybe*, *might* happen?

If something actually IS happening, I don't see why ARs are not the solution.

If there actually IS a problem, it should be reflected in the number of (genuine) ARs filed.

depends who you beliefe, if you beliefe me and other child avatar users it is rare, if you beliefe lias and other child avatar haters every other child avatar is used for sex if not every child avatar

LIKE I SAID - when LL realizes that that one line of text in their Community Standards document will not protect them from the negative publicity and illegal activities child avatars have been the catalyst of since 2007, the ban hammer will fall.

Someone at Linden Lab realized that only absolutes are working solutions in this virtual world (Zindra, Bots, Adfarming). Seems like these bans have been happening since M took over and when Philip started running the board.

No company publishes the instances of pedophilia and child porn in their annual repot - so your not going to see those numbers. But you can see from the frequency of threads on this subject that it is alive and thriving on the grid.

Let me make this clear people: No Human Child Avatars - No documented abuses of Human Child Avatars. Done and done.

To be fair, I think that sort of inverts cause and effect.

In general, "child avatar haters" don't infer from their hatred that all child avatars are used for sex. It's the other way 'round: People who think that *all* avatars are used for sex infer that child avatars are used for sex and therefore child avatars are despicable.

The logic is internally consistent, and the basic assumption is not that uncommon. If one's own sole interest in Second Life is sexual, or to sell goods and services to other folks for their sexual pleasures, or to train folks to work in the sex industry, or some combination of those, well... what else might one assume?

There's a generalization of this in which the anti-child-AV people don't assume this of themselves, but rather assume that some very important other person will assume the worst. One might have a big Estate or Mainland rental empire, and fear that the Press or the Corporates or the Educationals will view Second Life as all-sex-all-the-time, in which case a child avatar would be a threat. Unfortunately, these folks have a point: there's nothing quite so sick as the mind of a "journalist" desperate for an exposé, and nobody as sheeplike as those who've spent their career towing the line at corporations and educational institutions.

I have a child avatar (on an alt account) which I made (in part) to avoid the question of sex in SL.

It's nice to not get hit on.

.

We are way beyond assumptions Qie. Unless your forgetting the last two years.