New controversial kid-avs-in-Zindra thread!

No, but nothing seems to stop you from joining every single such thread and campaigning vociferously against child avatars.

No. Just child porn and virtual pedophilia. No country anywhere has laws against child avatars. Your well-poisoning is fail.

You know, that's the second time recently I've seen someone use the term "poisoning the well" for something that doesn't at all match my understanding of the phrase, and in a context I've never seen used elsewhere.

I've always seen it used as a metaphor for one of the ways the Tragedy of the Commons can play out. For example, "the potential use of email for marketing has been destroyed by spammers, they've poisoned that well so there's no point trying to drink from it". There's no implication that spammers were *trying* to destroy email marketing, it was just an inevitable result of their actions.

Live and learn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

Although the phrase does work as a functional metaphor in the sense you use it as well, so it's all gravy.

I said Linden Lab has published sanctions against human child avatars that carry over into Real life international laws. Understand?

She means "sanction" in the sense of ban. Not "sanction" in the sense of bless.

.

And you are wrong all sanctions apply to all avatars equaly, for exsample if you place sexual poses in a setting normaly assosiated with children it does not matter one damn if you and the users of the poses are dragons robots sluts or hovering balls

Wow! The LL TOS influences legal systems around the world now!

Of course it mattered. Hundreds of avatars in the welcome area and this guy approached the child avatar for sex. That matters.
Here is one for you. Imagine a private island owner that makes her island adult and makes the island accessible by her residents and their guests only. Her residents have sex-gen beds in their homes. The island owner welcomes child avatars in the adult area homes. Here we have a atmosphere that welcomes child avatar abuses. As the island owner turns a blind eye to the activities. This is what allowing child avatars on the grid brings us.
Abi, the word 'child' is key in that child porn issue.
Everyone seems to be on topic here. I suggested that child avatars should not adult verify - or make a Alt that is not adult verified when they want to wear a human child avatar and the OP's issue would not exist. From there the thread progressed (with your help). Take responsibility and stop trying to make a villain to cloud the issue.
That is a blatant non-truth. And one would wonder why you would promote such a white wash on this subject.
How the hell do you know that?

The legal systems around the world influences the LL ToS. That is why there are sanctions against human child avatars in the ToS.

Passive-aggressive often? Starting the fire, fueling it when your arguments were refuted, then crying victim?

My argument was not refuted - You child avatar apologists just decided to ignore the suggestion that would assist in dealing with this sensitive issue. "No, I am not going to do that' is not a legitimate argument against a course of action that would ensure human child avatars do not 'mistakenly' show up in adult rated areas.

You need to reprimand the OP for posting the thread in the first place. HE effectively started and fueled the fire. Yes, he was just making light of the situation - but posting it in a public forum may not have been the best decision considering the issue.
I don't get the joke.

Sounds like the problem in that case is the adult avatar.

If there aren't any child avatars, he's just going to ask adult avatars to ageplay.

Ageplay is not virtual pedophilia as long as no one wears a child avatar Milla.

Linden Lab 'borrowed' the BDSM term ageplay to put lipstick on the pig that is virtual pedophilia and child porn. The wiki now gives credit to Second Life (just this year) for developing the term 'sexual ageplay'.

There are no sanctions in the ToS against human child avatars. A sanction, as you're attempting to use it (and failing), is a penalty imposed for some slight. The UN, for instance, imposes sanctions on treaty-violators when they do something disruptive to peace. That's the misunderstanding - the normal people here don't understand why a provision that child avatars can't have sex would be considered a "penalty" by anyone, including child avatars. Only in your bizarre delusion that all child avatars wish they could have sex in SL would such a rule be considered a "sanction".

I'm curious though - do you even understand what you're talking about? You said



And then you said



So which is it? Do LL's rules carry over into RL, or is it RL laws that carry over in LL's rules? One influences the other - you can't have it both ways. Your logic is circular.

By the way, there's still no RL laws against child avatars anywhere in the world.

This child avatar apologist actually gave a whole series of arguments that you still refuse to address. Still post #74, if I'm not mistaken.



You wouldn't - which oddly enough makes it more funny.

Yeah, right.

Even if child avatars are banned, what's to stop anyone from editing their appearance in private to make one? Exactly like now under the current rules.

It's obvious your goal is simply to ruin Second Life for residents who don't misuse child avatars.

No. I am pretty certain there's no body of international law on the subject, though there are certainly local laws and treaties about joint jurisdiction.

The relevant offences in English law, at least, would involve making, possessing or distributing indecent images of children. It's arguable whether an image in SL would be caught by the legislation,but I think it probably could be, though it's by no means clear to me how such a case could be prosecuted unless the defendant had actually saved a screenshot of his activities.

In any event, the offence in the UK would involve using the resources offered by SL to make such an image, as someone might make one with Poser or 3dMax.

Linden Labs have gone a step further, banning activities like placing child avatars near explicit sexual content that give rise to suspicions someone might be intending to make such an image, or encouraging others to. This also helps SL avoid bad publicity generated by people publishing images of child avatars near such content, even though there's nothing illegal about the image itself (which is just as well for some people who've posted links to pictures of supposedly scandalous goings-on in Zindra, I guess).

The offence is to do with making and possessing digital images of child avatars in certain situations or doing certain things, in other words. Your unqualified statement, "Linden Lab has published sanctions against human child avatars" is about as accurate and as misleading as would be "the criminal law in many jurisdictions contains sanctions against parents taking photographs of their children." Which it quite rightly does, if those photographs are pornographic.

I am told that the law in some places relating to activities that might take place in SL goes further; quite possibly it does, but before we can have a sensible discussion of that, I'd need an informed account of what the law in those countries actually says.

Wow we now have welcome areas that can handle that much avatars


It s truely sad that you do not even realise how far fetched your imagined situation sounds, that sim does not need to be adult and there is no link between a home with a sexbed and child avatar abuse as many have already pointed out to you

the issue in the OP only exsist because of child avatar haters like yourself want nothing more then a reason to AR childavatars

there is no white wash the number of actions with regard to the ageplay rules has gone down dramaticly over the past 2 years.
And anyone who has followed the opensim and lightsim history knows that the owner of areas like wonderland made her own grid this is hardly secret

That same argument can be used for gambling and adfarming. They are going to do it anyway - so do not send a clear message to the customer base and the nip this sort of thing in the bud.

Milla, really? LOL.

I addressed them. And I believe Brie wrote something about how you can change your settings. BUt you all still believe that people wearing human child avatars should gleefully enter Adult rated areas. SO any suggestions on how to make sure that does not happen falls on deaf ears.

You wanna know something? I don't care what adfarmers and gamblers do in private, and your hypothetical kid toon invasion is so damn private that you had to get your boyfriend to fake an incident because there was, like, zero actual evidence of anything even vaguely like it ever happening. You want LL to send a message to people who don't actually exist. Give it a frigging rest already.

How does that work for adfarming? Adfarming doesn't work if you hide it.

The solution is the same, you ban the offending practice. Gambling is a TOS violation, adfarming is a TOS violation and child avatar sex is a TOS violation. Linden Lab addressed the issue two years ago.

This thread was begun to address the problem of child avatars' being safe if they unwillingly or accidentally end up in an adult rated area, where they are susceptible to being AR'd in the moment and a half it takes for them to realize they're in a bad place and leave. I don't know where you've gotten the idea that any of us actually WANT to go to and trapse around Zindra now that it's full of Your Favorite Things. I suspect you made it up, you're good at that sort of thing.

I'm willing to at least entertain any suggestion that doesn't involve abandoning hundreds of dollars worth of inventory that was purchased -for my current avatar to use-. It's easy to tell other people to give up money. Sour grapes, and all that.

You may not be aware that adfarming is about extortion , not about selling ads. The 16m square can be a $90,000L hole in the middle of a sim designed to annoy the landowners there until they pay to make it go away.

LL tried to soft peddle adfarming laws along with bot laws. Then they realized the only answer was a full ban. With all of these lenghty discussions about this on going problem LL may soon come ro the same conclusion. Hopefully.