Jack - Why allow child avatars on Zindra?

Anyone with a premium account can buy mainland anywhere they want.

Whether or not Linden Lab will approve of her playing a child avatar on it is another matter.

Well at least one of you acknowledge the inconsistency and the gray area there. Then it is well worth 300 pages of chatter.

My parcel won't have inappropriate content. At worst, it'll have a giant cookie jar, just like it does now. Maybe even a shooting range. (^_^)y

Imnot! The scenario is your cookie adjacent to a webcam prostitution ring with a BDSM bondage room behind you and a Master's castle across the street. How unsavory of you to even suggest that you would set up your cookie there and be on that parcel in a child avatar in Adult Zindra.
This is the cusp of the argument/ Why would child avatars be allowed to do this? Linden Lab needs to tell them they are not allowed to do this OR eve set foot in a child avatar costume in Adult Zindra.

Naw. That's crazy. I'd surely pick a nicer looking location, probably a bit farther from sexual content. It'd still be in Zindra though. (^_^)y

It is also a completely seperate issue from whether child avatars should be banned from adult regions. In that case there may be a question of proximity to sexual content.

why is that the ONLY STYLE OF SCENARIO you ALWAYS refer to? again, Zindra WILL NOT BE WALL TO WALL SEX. ADULT ORIENTED is NOT EXCLUSIVE TO SEX. read the definition for a change instead of deciding you already know exactly what it says and exactly what it means. you have been so singleminded in this that you still cannot grasp that not everyone in SL is there for sex, and not everyone moving to Zindra is moving for the sexual aspects.

and it doesn't take a rocket scientist, or even a faux suschi chef, to know that Imnotgoing Sideways doesn't do everything on SL as a child AV. some people actually have the imagination to not be pigeonholed.

Just qurious about the wording here. So if a child avatar is in company of, say, an SL uncle, it'd be less offending to you? Given that both the uncle and the nephew has an adult RL human behind them,what's the difference?

I'd be more concerned that the RL person behind the "uncle" in question is actually the kid AV's RL 8 year old daughter and much more nefarious things are afoot. (^_^)y

I would be more concerned that they are Gerbils.

ARMAGEDDON!!!!! XD

I assume the idea of these silly one word posts is to detract from the discussion and to have nothing pertaining to the OPs issue on several of the last pages of the thread.
If you have nothing more to add to the conversation than 'gerbil and XD - you have become skilled enough to graduate to the SLU forums. The rest of us will stay here and discuss ideas.

Sounds to me like SOMEONE wants things their way and is throwing a tantrum because they aren't getting it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the ageplay thing specifically bans (ostensibly adult, based on the fact that their verified) child-like AVs from engaging in, or appearing to engage in, sexual activities. Yes?

Just want to get that straight.

Just curious why these people that are SO rabidly "OMGTHINKOF THE CHILLUNS" (note how they keep using "children" and "child" rather than "child av" etc.) feel like they have the right to tell other people what to do. Has there been a paradigm shift in society where "I don't like that" and "In my opinion" means that these opinions become fact and, because they are "fact", the person gets a say in what other people can and can't do?

"You shouldn't be allowed to do that because I don't like it" only works on your property.

If it's not your property, you don't get a say.

Wait a minute.

You are not discussing. You, Lias, are ducking, dodging, avoiding, and redefining.

Try actually responding POINT for POINT to what is being said to you, and then we will have a discussion.

Right now it is more of a Lias the Pinata party and everyone is trying to whack sense into you, not really a discussion.

Yes, I agree. They are like that kid in that Youtube video after his mother canceled his WoW account; making noise and looking for negative attention.
Because it RL it is offensive and against the law. Therefore it should not be depicted in SL.
I know of three facts of child avatar issues that have negatively impacted SL in the last two years (the German Pedo scandal, SL5B Ban and protest, and this Adult Zindra issue). Child Avatars are the only type of avatar that LL has written restrictions on. no paradigm shift. These are the facts Mickey.

And Imnotgoing has been real honest and informed. She knows no Linden rule says she cannot buy a parcel in Adult Zindra and set up her home there while she wears her child avatar the entire time. And that is a Linden oversight that will prove to people outside of SL that the lack of bad taste and proper guidelines in SL is deliberate.

OK, and thank you Briana. I think that gerbil has chewed its way through your spinal cord.

I think you missed the fact that the "they" who are like that kid in the Youtube video, the "someone" who Mickey is referring to, are YOU, Lias.

Oh, I get it now. How rude!

Offensive and against the law... Yes. So is impersonating a police officer. (^_^)y

Fancy you comparing yourself to the SL cops. They are the main reason that groups can't claim to be SL-anything anymore. They are more infamous than child avatars in SL.

Should we remove all the content in SL that is offensive or against the law in RL?

Zindra will be a whole lot smaller.

There are laws against someone playacting at being a child, even though all evidence points to them actually being an adult? I did NOT know that.

The Pedo scandal was addressed and dealt with, wasn't it? Didn't it spawn this controversial verification issue? Now, with verification and the ageplay rules, we are as guaranteed as possible that no children are being harmed. Aren't we?
The SL5B thing, from what I've heard, was actually intolerant people moving against people in Child AVs, and not started by the Child AV people themselves. Am I wrong in this?
And, finally, the "Adult Zindra issue"... um... which issue is that? The one you and the OP made up? Sorry, that was facetious. Can you elaborate on this issue, please, as I haven't heard about it, saving you and the OP.

Your last sentence, again, from what I can see, sums it up.
Your OPINION is that it is an oversight that will yaddee yaddee yadda, but you are stating it as fact.
Your OPINION is that it's bad taste (I'm going to assume you didn't mean "the LACK of bad taste" (emphasis mine), and thus evidence of lack of proper guidelines.

These aren't facts.

I'm just curious. If I told you that you couldn't do something on your own plot... let's say I started telling you that you can't build a certain kind of house, or put content on there that, while perfectly within the guidelines, I find offensive... how 'bout your music? Let's say I don't like the music you're playing and told you that you shouldn't be allowed to play it... would you agree that I have the right to demand that?

If not, why do you think you've got the right to tell other people what they can do on THEIR land?

Did someone say police?