Upcoming Changes for Adult Content: Answers to Questions

Now if you'd just listen to the tremendous outcry about your harebrained adult continent scheme we'd be making progress.

Twice now the people behind this have came up with FAQ's that have caused an outcry, you're way out of touch with your users on this issue and are making no attempt to find middle ground.

If i have a picture of Christ on a cross will this put my sim in adult, mature or, pg?
Reason i ask is most Christ depictions are nude, and the cross was used as a torture device also its death. from what i have read so far torture, death , and nudity makes your sim adult.
and if this depiction is allowed in a pg sim, can i have a picture of my avatar nailed to a cross also in the pg sim?

I am curious how it will be divided as to what is "art" "religion" and "porn"

Thank you LL for getting back to me on this.
It would clarify alot

OMG!!! There wasn't a tremendous outcry about the new Mature definitions and how they appear in the KB article? Oh, yes I forgot... Our outcries don't matter.

Considering that Amazon-Fail was brought up in your Definitions Brown Bag and how you really wanted to avoid that situation here, I find this turn of events quite ironic.

The two issues are unrelated.

I have two unlucky chaiirs at my place too

Is account verification the same as AGE verification? In other words, if someone has used Xstreet as you describe, then they can enter/use/search Adult content?

Well, that settles it. I have to move.But, 2-4% my Axx, this applies to everyone that I have met in SL. THe performance of SL has been awful lately and if Ursala is any worse, it won't be that I leave because I am unhappy, it will be because I just can't play at all anymore. My house looks so pure on the outside, but it is a full den of inequity and people seem to like it that way a lot more than 2-4%. I am trying hard not to say that I hate Linden Labs, so let's just say that I hate this.
BT

ok let me reword the question.
If i run a church i have a picture of chirst on the cross does that count as death, torture and nudity?

Epistemological death would have an elevated probability of immanentizing the eschaton through a process of iterated quantum suicide.

Blondin:
Will a non verified account ( not PIU, not PIOF, not Aristotle verified, no payment info on XstretSL) be able to purchase adult items (uncensored) from XStreetSL?

NPIOF Conversion Problem!
NPIOF Conversion Problem!

A New Ticket Type is needed for Basic accounts.
The ONLY Verification related ticket is to submit RL Documents and send hard copy.
We NEED one that is: ""I have Verified but it is NOT Working IN World""
Especially in light of [ Any other support ticket submitted by a Basic account or Guest login will be ignored ]

Automatic conversion of NPIOF to PIOF in world is spotty after adding payment info.
And NIPOF to PIU or PIOF appears broken when related to Xstreet use.

How can a resident get this fixed if they can't submit a ticket?


REPEAT:
NPIOF Conversion Problem!
New ticket type needed due to the new Verification Rules:
Somebody Please fix this!

Could you revisit the definitions of adult and mature as well.

In particular, the apparently odd use of the term "photorealistic", and the lack of definition of terms like "hosting" or "advertising", and the lack of any explicit note that personal non-commercial property not visual to casual passers-by is not "Adult".

I don't know. It's possible as our data team has all kinds of metrics, but I'm not aware of any off the top of my head.



Those who attended have disclosed their identities in earlier posts. And trust me, those who attended were not in favor the changes to Adult content

We also need an option that says "I took the trouble to verify ages ago, but now it's stopped working and you have no record of my Verification. I'll be damned if I'm going to send you scans of my personal documents so that you can lose them/sell them/have them stolen, especially since I took the trouble to verify on your flaky, flaky system previously"

About par, but that's not saying much, all things considered.

For the ones who are uncomfortable with it, they don't have to go down into the dungeon. If it really bothers them that much, THEY CAN SIMPLY LEAVE. WHY would they AR it? Why would you care if they weren't being exposed to it at all?

When it comes right down to it, you're basically still dictating what people can and can't do with respect to Adult content on their own land. Despite all your claims of "no, that's mature", someone is going to AR it, and you're going to have to make a judgment call. With the way you all are handling this so far, I have NO CONFIDENCE in your ability to make an informed judgment call on the matter, so there will be no "edge cases"; everything will be handled from the standpoint of "do you have adult content? Yes? You have to flag your land adult and/or move to the Adult Gulag". It will end up being black/white.

It smacks of the same stupid "blue laws" that infested the US (and in many places, are still on the books, though mostly unenforced); you can only have sex in the missionary position, at night, with the curtains drawn and the lights out.

WHY is it better to listen to one of those party-goers and destroy the SL experience for 19 others and punish an otherwise outstanding resident over something that the complainer was not exposed to or otherwise coerced into experiencing? "WAH! I went to Joe's party and half the people went down into some sex dungeon!" "Did you go yourself?" "No" "Were you coerced or harassed into going/participating?" "No, but it offended me!" "Then why didn't you just leave?"

It goes back to the same thing we keep trying to get across to you (and whoever your handlers are), people have ALWAYS had control over their SL experience; no one can force anyone else to experience anything they don't wish to. Even with griefers who wear giant floppy, particle-spewing phalluses, all the person has to do is LEAVE. AR it if they want, but they DON'T have to stay. If they don't want to experience it AT ALL, then they best not bother using SL, because, even with ALL of the plan you are implementing now working PERFECTLY, you CAN NOT GUARANTEE that people will be any more "protected" from being exposed to "Adult Content" from that vector than they are now. Griefers don't need to age-verify to get ahold of a freenis, supersize it, and run around the welcome areas and other prudish PG/G regions to terrorize the poor Puritans.

The vast majority of adult content is well-marked and identified as such. Given that, the chance that someone is going to "stumble across" something they don't want to experience is ALREADY *EXTREMELY* LOW.

What is so ironic and stupid is that you are going out of your way to HIDE adult content, to drive it underground and to obfuscate it in Search, which means that the above situation is no longer true. NOW people WILL "happen across it", because it won't be clearly marked anymore. Stores that sell adult content, but don't advertise it will get ARed because the prudes TPed in, saw some folks trying out naughty sex animation poseballs, got disgusted, and filed an AR. The thing is, the entity they SHOULD be ARing is LINDEN LAB itself for setting up a policy which FORCED the store owners to hide their search terms in the first place.

Lastly, it appears you don't care much for my tone, and is probably justification in your mind for ignoring me and my questions from the beginning. Thing is, my tone didn't start out hostile until YOU (and the rest of LL) ignored me and others asking similar questions. If you didn't want it to turn hostile, then you shouldn't have created the environment that fostered it in the first place by doing a better job at CS. In the end, you created the monster you loathe, so buck up and take some responsibility for it. Disrespect starts and ends with the Company, because YOU all are the ones empowered to engender it or defuse it amongst your customers. We're simply responding to you in what we feel is most appropriate for the way you are (mis)handling us. We're paying you money to not screw us over, and you're making plans to do exactly that. There's simply NO WAY you can sell this plan as "not-a-screw-over", because it is so obviously and badly flawed in conception as well as execution that any amount of spin is going to be noticed by even the most unattentive of people. It really is that blatant and obvious, and you all will continue to be called on it until you let it go.

You still have not answered the bevy of questions I have asked numerous times before, which include providing hard data to back up your claims, and evidence to back up your rationale versus other options.

The window is fast closing for you and the rest of LL to pull the fat out of the fire; attrition is already starting over this, and will only accelerate in the race for the bottom that you are engaging in here. This action has the potential to make the OpenSpace debacle look like a bed of roses.

I don't expect that you'll respond to ANY of this, but continue to ignore it (hell, I am waiting for the moderator delete any day now at this point), because to do otherwise would actually make it a "discussion" and an "attempt to understand and negotiate" with your customers. We all know that That Can't Happen(tm).

I was going to say something along those lines, but decided that humour would have undermined the veracity of my rant, so... :-/

Which begs the question "Who is in favour?"

There's something very wrong with a policy that is not meeting widespread support.

"Plausible deniability" -- not.

OK Blindin.s evasive answer to the question ask to who was consulted was some posters in this forum were, then he stated the people have made themselves known.

So, conclussion, we were lied to again in the blog posting by Cyn and it appears clear they never plan to make transcripts of the meetings,because then they have to list who was there.

So no major merchant in the adult area was consullted. We know from here and meeting with Jack, at Very Large Mianland land owners were not consulted.

I know from tlaking to other Miulti sim owners none of them were consulted.

So translation, they never taked to any of of these group most effected by the change and don't give a damn how we will be impacted at all. They have been planning this since last year, while selling us more sims, etc., and happily taking our money.

Anyone else smell breach of contract??

Oh, just fine, just fine. So far, you have encouraged us to lie in Search, to hide our activities, and told us that it's perfectly OK to do whatever we like, as long as we follow the Eleventh Commandment ("Thou Shalt Not Get Caught".

Congratulations. You have created an EXACT simulation of Real Life.

Talarus' post was well after my own, which means you skipped mine. Well I'm sorry, I'm not going to let you do that. I need answers if we are going to comply with these rules, and if I have to keep nagging you til I get them, I will. You seem to be answering these posts arbitrarily - only answering those you want to answer. Or perhaps you're "scanning" the forum and missing a lot of them?

Here's mine, since you obviously overlooked it.
/352/11/314444/177.html#post2400790

I'd appreciate some answers.

Stroker was consulted, Stroker is a major merchant. Whereas the choice of participants at the brown bags is questionable, some of the people invited were big players.

That is about the best summary I have seen so far.
I guess that is what was really meant by "A Predictable Experience"!

The only people who count are the investors, the media and LL.

They're all cool with it.

There has been a tremendous outcry against the ENTIRE PLAN!

I am pleased you opened your eyes enough to see one flaw, and acknowledged that you saw it. Now open the other eye and see that the rest of the definitions and plan is JUST AS BADLY FLAWED!