New controversial kid-avs-in-Zindra thread!

I understand your point that if there are no child avatars there is no possibility of abuse.

However, your argument that these threads prove sexual activity doesn't hold water.

I was saying that *LL* can see whether there is a problem. What they would do with that information is another matter. If you're asserting that they know there is a problem and that they're covering it up, that's an awfully strong accusation to be making.

I don't believe that there *is* a problem, because if people know of abuse, they can AR it. If they don't know of abuse, they're only imagining it.

If you repeat 100 times that the possibility of abuse exists, it doesn't mean that abuse is taking place. It only means that you've repeated your belief.

No, actually that supposition is wrong also - what's to stop people from IMing whatever they wanted, to each other? Or from simply changing height on their avatar whenever they wanted?

I don't understand the furor since sexual ageplay is already against the TOS and rightly so.

The possibility of abuse would be the same as it is now because such activity has to take place in private since it's already a TOS violation.

Illegal in Germany, perhaps, but not in the US. Against TOS, yes.

There are thousands of issues in SL, but only a few bans.

Noted. You've made your position perfectly clear already, several times. Unfortunately, with your solution, nobody gets to play a child role using a child avatar, which you consider less important than the small "threat" of a child avatar appearing by accident in Zindra. Well, we all know you're an extremist; you've made that perfectly clear as well.

But I'm convinced you're wrong that LL will adopt your suggestion.

I'll wager 20:1 odds that it won't happen in one year.
I'll wager 10:1 odds that it won't happen the year after that.
I'll wager 5:1 odds that it won't happen the year after that.

And so on.

"It" in this case, being that LL bans human child avatars, across the grid. I lose (paying the larger amount), in Lindens, if LL announces a ban before the end of the specified term, and actually enacts the ban within a calendar year after that.

Post me the amount and the term, and I'll accept or reject, mostly depending on whether I can cover my commitment. The term starts when I accept the offer.

I laugh at the proposition that all child avatars should be banned from SL because some of them engage in activities that are against the TOS. As mentioned earlier, this same logic could be used to ban anything, without just cause.

The ONLY way to completely avoid sexual age play in SL is to shut down SL entirely. This solution is the logical conclusion of Lias's arguments, because the "no child avatars" is impossible to police. Shut down LL completely, and the problem is solved: there will be no abuse in SL!

Oh, but Lias might actually *enjoy* SL, so we can't do that.

I agree with what you say - I was only saying I understood her words.

While I agree that forum posts don't prove anything, I do believe that given anything we can think of, someone's doing it somewhere on the grid.

I'm confident there are ToS violations of every kind, on the grid, including people engaging in sexual age play.

We have to yeild on that point, regardless of how well it was made.

There are any number of ToS violations, but we shouldn't simply remove the necessary but insufficient active ingredient. For example, removing $L would eliminate gambling, but it's not a solution that a sensible person would consider very long.

It's easy to take away from others things we have no use for ourselves. But it's a double-edged sword, one that should be used with extreme care.

Well put, Lear.

Perhaps I am. It's not what I'm thinking about now, anyway. What's becoming increasingly clear to me is that eventually LL will have no choice but to throw all Adult Content under the bus, unless they come to their senses about the markets that currently star in their games of Fantasy Finance.

And child avatars just don't much figure into that equation. If we could ban all *female* avatars from Adult land, there might be hope for their plan. Granted, that would defeat the purpose of "Adult Content" for 90% of those "adults", but to be politically correct in the eyes of a corporation worried about image and potential harassment suits, sexuality and femininity must never meet.

We live in strange times, when it's no longer possible to distinguish Fundamentalists from Feminists; we live by the Parable of the Fish and the Bicycle.

(How the hell did you heterosexuals spawn a whole generation of Prudes?)

Uhhhh . . .

We are painting with a rather broad brush, aren't we?

In both directions, but you do get my point, right?

I get the point that there is a kind of chill that has set in, on a wide number of issues. And yes, SOME of that has been prompted by a particular variety of feminism. And much more by a certain variety of corporate lawyer.

So, yes . . . guardedly . . .

You mean "the negative publicity that Lias Leandros has been aggressively promoting (and conspiring to manufacture out of whole cloth) since 2007".

It is more than an accusation. Linden Lab denied it was happening when it was brought it to their attention in 2006. The Germans had to post the story all over the net to get Linden Lab to change their position on the child avatar abuses happening in Second Life.
First Robin Linen poo-pooed it away with this statement:

Then when the videos and chatlogs of virtual child sex rings in Second LIfe were posted all over the net - she back-peddled and released this statement:
Linden Lab still dragged its feet for several more months as more and more video reports of virtual child sex rings in SL appeared on the net - until in 2007 their no child avatar sex rule was added in writing to the Community Standards document.

So yeah, LL will cover it up as long as they can get away with it. Not because LL endorses it - it os because LL does not want that stink to stick to them.
You just do not want to believe there is a problem. Gavin Hird's recent thread shows that it happens randomly all over the grid. /327/87/340883/1.html. I will admit it is well-hidden - but it is established and functioning. There is a vigilante group that goes undercover as child avatars and sends chatlogs to LL when they are solicited for sex - but they are not going to surface and publish stats for us. And I am sure Linden Lab will not share that data with the general public (or the FBI).
Agreed. But I am not comfortable with one confirmed child avatar abuse report. Nor am I comfortable with the completely legal (in terms of LL ToS) nude beach in Second Life that sells child avatars and mandates all the children and adults must be nude at all times. Take a screen shot of that and post it on the web and you have virtual child porn.

LL Moved thousands of customers as a solution to one issue. Removing one avatar type is not such an drastic solution in light of that. I have been here since 2005 and I have lost more inventory than I care to think of the cost of. That is no excuse to dismiss viable alternatives than having child avatars appear where ever they like and blame the servers. Child avatar apologist have not shown the slightest bit of ability to help solve the problem - they would rather insist there is no problem - or attack anyone that insists there is a problem.

I know in Connecticut the FBI frowns upon people pretending to be children to gain the trust of children. (My 19 year old hacker neighbor received a visit from a FBI agent when he was telling young girls he was a 13 year old girl named Bunny in chatrooms. The FBI eventually gave his harddrive back to him but no one in the neighborhood would allow him to touch their computers again). )So when the teen grid merges with the adult grid - I definitely see LL banning human child avatars. The ban should happen right now.

Nice insinuendo. Putting up a claim that they had no evidence of crimes involving *real children* and implying that proves they were denying cartoon kid sex involving adult players.

You are a sad bloody case, Lias.

This thread is specifically about the two infohubs Arapaima and Oritz. A solution to that issue (as well as others) has been put forth in the form of http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/VWR-15568.

Gambling is illegal in Second Life
The adfarmers and the bot owners laughed also. Common sense prevailed.
Now who is the extremist? If you do not want people to use human child avatars in sexual situations you just ban the use of human child avatars. The solution is so simple and does not really effect anyone in any real way.
NO gambling and no bots are impossible to police. Yet the bans are in place - as they should be.

I actually have a beautifully done river parcel in Zindra my neighbors have some nice builds near by thank god...
I placed a music venue up for live music and there is no sex going on ....
I would gladly welcome any child avatar to attend ... as there is no sex at my place its a music venue .... across the sim at the other land is my rentals in sky suites that's another issue.

But I just don't get it
why is it assumed that just because someone created a child avatar that they are doing it for illicit reasons?

A ban on sexual ageplay is also in place. Your desire for a policy to deal with the sexual exploitation of child avatars was fulfilled two years ago.

"It's a conspiracy! There is something on the wing of the plane smashing the engines! There is! There is!"


Like he is widely recognized as an unbiased authority.

BTW, for an example of where this can all lead:


The big issue to that article is that by seeing problems that do not exist it makes the REAL predators that much easier to hide.

I voted for it. Thanks Sindy Tsure. All child avatars should vote yes to this one - so no more excuses like the OP presented.

The policy is a fail. Now absolutes need to be discussed and put in place as soon as possible.

There were actual incidents of casinos and botfarms that people could actually verify. You could actually get independent confirmation that the problem existed without having to trust one person's unsupported assertion to that effect. Your scare campaign about kid toons showing up in sexually-oriented builds and terrorizing Zindra merchants with the risk of ARs would be hilarious if you didn't seem so completely serious about it.

Kara, you stay in your own little special place of denial while the rest of us discuss. Have a nice nap.

Prove it.

Maybe she is just trying to give us an idea? kiddie protection rackets