Jack - Why allow child avatars on Zindra?

*puzzled* Why? I would think the instinctual thing to do would be to PROTECT children (even if known to be adults in RL) from predators. Sorry, I do not follow your logic.

I believe women with children running the corporation would better understand the need that some have to protect children. They would better understand what is acceptable depictions of children and not feel playing word games is an effective way to deal with these concerns.

LOL
So how much of history are ya gonna rewrite? In reaction to the fiasco of the ban at SL5B a lot of people stood up against it, there was KIDS5B (google it), and a lot of people were impressed with KIDS5B including several Lindens who paid visits. (as hopefully they would be, as we have a higher proportion of content creators than in the general SL population)

No, most women are more rational than men - the crusade "but we have to protect the children!" is usually led by men who have no idea what they are talking about, see Rep. Kirk. Of course, there are some exceptions from that rule. Like you.

The problem with that is: it takes away attention from the real problems and real battles. But hey, as long as those people can go home after work and pat themselfs on their shoulders and they "Look what a great job we did again today..." everything is fine.

Oh, I agree that many stood up against it - I have stated that in response to three posts about it in this thread. I am saying the child avatar people took full advantage of that support and forced Linden Lab to retract the ban. Your 'higher proportion of creators' statement is unsupported but I see not reason to challenge that statement.

But it's a good idea to stay somewhat on topic in these public forums - the Child avatars in Zindra - and the reason quite a few are concerned about child avatars having access there. The history of the child avatar in SL has been tumultuous - and not one person in that entire community will even acknowledge anyone's concerns. You have convinced yourself that the pedophilia, the SL5B ban and the child avatar in Zindra alongside the dancing penis was everyone else's fault. If none of you feel you are responsible for anything then how can you learn from your actions?

Your finally admitting that you know what the people outside of SL think when it comes to the depiction of children in SL. Now that you are aware - why can't you get your child avatar groups to become aware? And then organize some changes in the way you all deal with the SL and RL people that voice these concerns.

Let me guess. You are a first/second wave feminist, right?

The kids community forced nobody to do anything. Neither did we force people to support us, nor did we force LL to retract the ban. The whole thing took on a great dynamic, because people simply realized what a dangerous precedent such a blanket ban on a complete community set. We didn't take advantage of anything - though it sure made us happy to see the great support we got and to be encouraged in our belief that this whole problem, created by LL, was simply not justified.



Ahem... Of course some individuals were at fault, like those pedophiles (though, I'm not sure if they even fit the definition of pedophiles, pedos are into kids, not into adults playing kids, but this really would be playing word games). The whole drama around SL5B was caused by nobody else but LL, in a poorly made decision without thinking about it before. Being close to a dancing penis avatar btw at the official opening party is not a problem in my eyes, it actually is kinda funny, and with even Lindens being on the scene and seeing no problem with it I think all that hysteria created around it is simply stupid. A real problem though is violating the signs "no nudity, no sex, ..." and dancing around naked. And a MUCH bigger problem is someone named L... L... encouraging people to entrap innocent residents and to create fraudulant Abuse Reports to "get rid of the little bastards". You still haven't answered that question, btw.

Once again. You don't punish a whole community for what some single individuals do. Just because L... L... promotes criminal acts and TOS violations, nobody will punish the whole adult avatar community.

Don't put meanings in my words. I say that you can't protect RL children by attacking adults who play child avatars in SL. If you would really think in the interest of RL kids, you would spend your time fighting for a real age verification to make sure that RL minors (who, btw, would not chose child avatars in SL) can't get access to SL. You would be happy about the adult content changes because with them the danger of RL kids who made it to the main grid encountering adult material is at least lowered a bit.

But no. You chose a substitute battlefield, made up by hysterics, with a blanket attack on all those who don't buy into your crusade.

And none of it caused by the child avatars, all caused by people harassing them, limiting their activities in SL. You might choose to accept unreasonable limits on what you can do, but other people don't, and those other people actually accomplish things... FOR you.

For example, the restrictions on sexual activities in SL would be much more extreme if we hadn't fought the first versions of the "Adult Content Definitions". You benefitted from our "misbehavior" there. And in gratitude, you're turning around and trying to create a whole new controversy that will, if it succeeds, end up restricting your own activities as much as anyone else's.

She didn't say she would, she said she could.

So you want to start on Disney, who have created cartoons with baby criminals running around holding up banks with automatic weapons?

No, so people whose characters happen to be kid toons can visit parcels that DO NOT contain any inappropriate content even if those parcels are in a sim with a rating that allows publicly displayed sexual content. You are taking an extreme position, they're simply pointing out how far you are from the norm set by Linden Labs.

Now you sound like the people who used to talk about how women would run the country in a kinder and gentler way... back before Margaret Thatcher.

I'm not worried about the media reactions to HER activities. I'm worried about the media reactions to YOUR activities, like the cock-suit fiasco. So allow me some skepticism about the sincerity of this wish.

That Didn't Happen. What happened was a kid toon in an area that didn't even allow porn, and a friend of yours putting on a cock suit just long enough to take a photo.

That would be "nothing".

It was an outsider, like you, who created a staged scene, like your friend in the cock suit, to create a scandal where none would have otherwise existed for the sake of publicity.

Right. Innocent as the day they were born.

Argent your train-of-thought post was amusing. Like a guy looking at inkspots blurting out the first thing that he can think of.

You would need to be in complete denial if you feel that the Service Provider banned an entire avatar type from SL5B for absolutely no reason.

Not guilty of the charges specified. The staged attacks are REALLY obvious.

Whereas you... well, I gotta say, I remember seeing an art book in the Alabama Bookstop called "Rude Food", and I thought it was pretty neat, but the way you're behaving has left a bad taste in my mouth for the whole genre.

Linden Lab did not attack child avatars before SL5B Argent. Linden Lab did not set-up child avatars so they could ban them from SL5B.

Did I say they did? Why no, I didn't. It was muckracking yellow journalists, like the ones who tried to scuttle the Internet back in the early '90s. You're doing the devil's work here, and today's equivalent of Joe Abernathy won't toss you so much as a bone for creating a story for them.

These 'yellow journalists' did not tell Linden Lab to ban the child avatar from SL5B. That was a corporate decision. Now you can ask yourself what influenced that decision. Then you have some insight into what actions child avatars are engaging in - or people assume they are engaging in - to make them unwelcome in a annual event that represents Second Life. Or not.

Look, you're literate and obviously intelligent, so I know you're not actually misunderstanding this. I'm talking about the root cause of the problem. The manufactured bad press. The way people blame the victim of the publicity campaign.

People playing kid toons are not responsible for what people assume about them. Not responsible. Not guilty.

So why were we welcome at EVERY second life birthday celebration but the only time there was a problem was after some people outside of SL decided to make a stink about child avatars?

You seem to be making the falacy that LL is a single entity. It is not, there are a wide range of individuals in it, each making their own decisions with their own biases. Yes, those decisions may or may not correspond with the official position of LL, but they stand until countermanded.

Also contrary to what many people seem to believe: the lindens are NOT deities.

Some of them seem to have more than a slight resemblance to Loki.

God that's going to be a boring adult continent. Count me out.

I am sure there must have been one associated with watermelons too. Or the hippo deity in ancient egypt.

Hail Eris.

Now your true agenda is finally publicly admitted. zomg we need to ban the child avatars.



If your friend in the cock suit feels he's not responsible for his own actions, wearing something totally inappropriate in an area where such things are not welcome today and never have been welcome, as such behavior is not ever acceptable on Linden Land, how is that the responsibility of the child avatar who was present? That's the fatal flaw in your logic that has everybody up in arms against you. Once again you are not thinking. Marianne did not hold a gun to that other avatar's head and order him to dress up as a cock or else. That was his own choice and the consequences of said decision are rightly placed on his shoulders, not anybody else's.

It's different when idiotic behavior is for a Cause. They call it Activism. or is it ActiVision? I always get those two mixed up.

Oh, yeah, I forgot we're dealing with an ActiVisionist.

much like a SelectiVisionist with a touch of ReVisionist.