Upcoming Changes for Adult Content: Answers to Questions

two questions that still need awnsers

1. the same one over and over, what exactly is the criteria for those who will be forced to move? I know you have attempted at an awnser but is barely broad strokes at best

2. i have many parcels on the same sim all deeded to my group and they are spread out, only becuase that is how land has become available I only build on one and only own them for my total prim alotment, will all my land be moved? and will they all be joined together or left scattered across the sim?

3. what things ensure that i'm either over or under the threshold of what is deemed mandatory to be moved, see question 1.
-O

***edit: yeah I can't count, three questions then***

Well stated. It is too bad that the irony of espousing virtues of tolerance within an agenda which is anything but tolerant is lost on the likes of Nany and her alts.Absolutely! I think kids are great - especially with ketchup!

Okay, okay, seriously - I have kids of my own. I enjoy the time we spend together, and I delight in watching them grow and discover new things. But at the end of the day, I still value a place where I can go and mingle with other adults, without having to deal with children. SL is that place for me.

I've just done march (I'm such a saddo) and the numbers were certainly interesting.

My figures are on sale amounts inworld - not numbers.

I had one who has since cancelled their account, so I just don't know what they were but they accounted for 1% of my sales inworld.

1.5% of my sales total were to piof (only 1.5%!)
npiof accounted for 17.5% of the total sales amount
piu accounted for 80% of the total sales amount

so from the March data I have a potential of a 20% drop in turnover if these people either don't have a payment av or don't chose to verify. On top of that, summer is coming in the northern hemisphere so we can expect a drop in sales anyway and of course losing search ranking with the move is not going to help matters..

When I get a chance I'll have a look at the XSL figures to see what they come up with.

Wynochee, first I'd like to see you go to the UN Human Rights Council and complain about this - I have a feeling you would get laughed out of the place.

I don't think it applies to video games and virtual worlds... or do you feel it gives the right for you to demand to own property in every online game and virtual world?

So in some virtual world you are born and live as a slave, do you really think you have the right to complain about Article 1 and get the game maker to change it so that it's "fair".

Do you also feel that the Geneva Convention should be applied to all online war games?

Getting flat, gren land should be easy, since that is what well over half of Ursila looks like on the map. Whether you'll be sandwiched between two megaprim walled clubs is another issue, but supposedly they plan to try to spread people out.

What I pity are the people who prefer land that looks natural, and not like a pool table. There seems to be almost zero hilly or mountanous or snowy terrain anywhere in Ursula, nor any sandy beaches. And we don't know the terraforming limits yet, but I suspect they will be somewhere between +/- 4M and "No Terraforming Allowed".

Please, please, please....answer the issues I raised in post /352/11/314444/14.html#post2377220/352/11/314444/14.html#post2377220 .

I already reminded you once in case you missed it. Now I am starting to get the feeling you don't want to answer the questions. Please show me I am wrong on that.

Arguements like this do not help the situation.

Setting aside for the momment the difficulties in enforcing any UN edicts....

The clause regarding exile does not mean freedom to live anywhere or freedom of tresspass. It does not mean that a RL city cannot adjust zoning, and it certainly does not mean that a virtual city cannot adjust zoning. SL is not a neccessity such as a place to live, food, water, etc. It may be the livlihoods of some, but jobs and businesses are not protected by UN charter.

And noone is being 'arrested.' You are not being sent to jail no matter how much you may try to equate the two.

Your right to own property is not being removed either. The terms of your service contract are changing but that is not the same thing. The implications of your interpretation are that no business could never legally go out of business.. they would be required to continue providing service at a loss, even if there was no contract guaranteeing unlimited service duration. You can still own property.

And it is not an arbitrary removal. Age restrictions are supported under various other acts, UN, federal, and local, regarding protection of children, and the courts have upheld those rights in any country that I know of enacting them. If anything, the criticism that such rights are not enforced enough is much stronger and louder than any regarding property rights.

And as for freedom of expression, there are numerous court cases as well as sections of various legislation explaining that such rights are not absolute. The classic example is that you cannot run around shouting 'FIRE' unless there really is a fire (or unless it is part of a stage production and obviously so). Age restrictions are another of those restrictions deemed reasonable by the courts and indeed by society.

To as many as people want and as fast as the moles can get them ready.

Thank you for the reply, but it's not what the items are that - it's what can happen with them in the store - people trying them to see if they want to buy or not. It was stated early on that such shops won't have to move "as long as people are not having sex in them", and it's what LL considers as "having sex" that I've asked about twice before and now a third time. I.e. does a pair of avatars trying sex animations out in a shop constitute having sex in LL's view? If Blondin said that people can try your sex stuff out in the shop and you still won't have to move, ok, but that's what I'm asking about. I'd still like Blondin, or a Linden in authority, to state it publically though.

ETA:
Some things I do know:- I am not going to move my store and suffer a greatly reduced potential customer base. And I am not going to set up a small extra shop on the adult continent just to sell my sex furniture, and I am not going to remove the sex furniture from my store. That's just leaves me one choice if they say I have to move.

This.

You said it well. I vote for you.

And after the Full Sims have been moved then those with half a sim or more of existing mainland should be given the option to buy all of the AO sim they have chosen.

What extra verification? 'Are you 18+ Yes/no' is not verification. That is like asking 'did you take the last cookie' some will answer honestly but many will lie. The question may as well be 'do you want to come in here?'. That is what 'Are you 18+' really means.



And yet if someone breaks into a home, they do not get to cite the home in RL for public indecency. On the other hand, who advertizes their private dwelling in RL? In RL if you advertize your 'home' with pictures considered indecent, you will be acting contrary to the law simply by way of the ad. Lol, if you are not zoned commercial you may also be fined by your municipality, even if the pictures are decent, depending on local policy on cottage industries.

This is one of the things that I have noticed with many of the protest posts. These changes are not that different from what already has existed for decades in RL. Many of these arguements have been tried in RL issues and failed.

Heh, while I do not think it should be required by law, I would like to see more games where the geneva conventions were evidenced.

I am not keen on the Grand Theft Auto series either...

SL is an exception in that all such 'situations' are consentual on both sides. Every place I have looked at has huge disclaimers, and most of them screen entry on their own (albiet not by direct age verification, but by application and/or interview). Not all of them do, but I think formal age verification would be a sufficient general screen for such areas.

LOL its not being a saddo its good business practice to know these things and the potential damage that it could cause to sales etc. But bear in mind for us it has no real relevance as if sales drop then we have just pay more from the RL business for the sim tier and we do not need the money to live on or use for any RL living expenses. We do not ever cash out L$'s to RL cash and my wife has more fun making the stuff than becoming the next SL tycoon and LL is friends with my business partners Mr Visa and Master Card

But that being said it does help towards the tier and paying the DJ we have every week and the money tree and various other incidental costs we incur in game so in that respect we are lucky, as directly a drop in sales will not affect how we spend in SL as we work each month from a budget and we know our RL accountant can offset that as advertising costs and that is bigger than what we will ever spend in game each month. But i do understand for some it is important money, but as in any RL business i would expect people to have planned etc. for these instances, just as we plan ahead with our RL business with costs for our server rack etc. etc.

OK here are the total L$ values of sales for February and March for the following account verifications:

PIOF: 1927
PIU: 75787

Total: 77714

NPIOF: 23530

So to answer the original question NPIOF spend but about a third of the other accounts, but still a reasonable amount of L$ nevertheless

This is not a scientific experiment and may not be representative of the grid as a whole, just before someone complains its wrong

Err the extra verification you need to get to the adult continent.





You're using completely absurd analogies with RL. In RL you have a physcial check, in RL a parent should be watching what their kid is upto on the computer, in RL a kid can't show someone else's passport and be verified as that person, RL analogies do not work. You can keep talking about RL all you like but this is not RL.

In SL we don't have commercial/residential zoning on mainland. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Thank you! SL is not RL. You cannot apply real life analogies in SL because it was never meant to be real life. It is Second Life, not your Second Real Life. If you choose to make your experience in world as real as possible, feel free to try, but most of us are in SL to escape from real life for a time. You cannot teleport of fly in real life. You cannot see through walls, or dance in the clouds. There are plenty of limitations in real life. Please stop trying to bring them into Second Life.

LOL - look at the Linden Tao, http://lindenlab.com/about/tao hahahaha, - with that, they started to blabla about the SL world as an advance for the "human condition". I know how funny I sound, but if the company has such high pretensions and acts constantly as persiflage or comedy/parody against its own bla bla, then I can put some spice on top too, while they start to discriminate, deplace, exile and censoring people, that China becomes a paradise in opposite to that, hahaha.

So take it not too serious what I wrote, but serious enough as a message (or a massage with iron gloves?) to them, that their biz-esoteric self-hypnotic blabla with their faked ethical "mission" is just trash from a sort wich can be contered and deconstructed easily.

They are not, but the current screening is inadequte. 'Are you 18+' may as well be 'There is stuff here you shouldn't be looking at unless you are 18+, want to look anyway?'



Then why not age verify at the door? (and retroactively too for all existing accounts?) That may be more than is needed, but it would help (not prevent, but help) keep kids out. No objection on that here, but not sure how the non-X rated merchants feel about that.

Give it a rest Alexander, pretty please - the age verification issue was flogged to death before, during and after LL's Aristotle debacle. I know it's an important issue, and anyone who wasn't around at the time has a right to debate it of course, but it's LL's problem, not ours, and it's NOT the subject of this thread.

lol I completely agree and if it ever got to the stage I was relying on this income in rl I think I'd go work in a supermarket.

Ok, this is getting confused. You responded to a response of mine to one of Skatoulaki Nakamori's posts and somewhere the context got lost.

The other poster seemed to be suggesting that the initial 18+ question should be enough and I responded to that.

And as for analogies in RL, I had misunderstood something they said, resulting in my comment on RL homes. I apologized later for the misunderstanding.

Responding to your take on it though, yes a RL parent should be looking after their kid, but if the kid ends up being hurt, the kid is the one who ends up being hurt. The parent may or may not be punished for letting the kid get hurt, but the kid is still hurt.

Age verification whether it is here or in RL does not prevent such incidents, but it does reduce them. RL id can be faked too. Bouncers do not confirm the id online to ensure it is real, they have to eyeball it. The reality though is that most kids will not steal their parent's id and those who will, well, they are willing to steal anyway and at least you can argue they are already 'harmed.'

Can we please back off the "censorship" rhetoric? Second Life is a privately-owned space. We pay to spend time in it. That does NOT give us rights to say anything in that space, in the same way that you have no rights to go into a Shopping Mall and do whatever you want and then sue the mall for them "censoring you". LL absolutely have the right to say what we can and can not do in-world.

They have chosen to make a relatively free world, but that doesn't mean you have any "rights" to it. And saying it does not make it so.

There is plenty of "meat" to this discussion - plenty of excellent points being made that absolutely 100% need to be sorted out without resorting to such extreme terminology.

You don't "own land' in any legal sense of the word. The only thing that you retain is copyright stuff you make. LL own your account and your data, it says so plainly in the ToS (Section 3.3).

Also look at Section 5.3:

And the "We spend money therefore we have rights" argument?
Spending real money at a RL store doesn't give you some legal right to a say in how the store should be run, why do you suddenly expect that of LL and SL? It just doesn't ring true.

So please, back off on all the pseudo-legal mumbo-jumbo - it just won't wash - you agreed to a TOS when you joined. Please read it, if you have forgotten what's in it.

The only right we have in this regard is whether we stay in-world and whether we continue to spend money. It ends at that.

and most of my stuff is BDSM/sex based mlp that any customer (or chancer) wants to try out they are more than welcome to.. I specifically mentioned the ability of customers to be able to try out the items when I invited him to have a look at the shop.

so If I'm fine you should be too.

That's why I say go and have a look.

My apologies.. I did not realize this thread was limited to those opposed to such measures. Have you made similar posts to those responding to my posts?

Especially since my original post in this thread was to suggest that direct opposition is not practical, and that trying to discuss how best 'upcomming changes to adult content' can be achieved on the understanding that they will happen?

As it's part of the Adult Content Policy, it certainly is a valid subject of the thread.

If it's simply account verification not age verification, what's the point? Adults can decide for themselves if they want to access adult rated content. Requiring account verification on top of that is nothing more than placing unnecesarry hardship on adult oriented businesses. Considering at least a third of their customers are not verified, that's a significant hit.

If it is about age verification, it's meaningless if everyone isn't verified. Everyone still has open access to Mature content, and Adult content is not restricted to the adult continent. Teens sneaking in will still be able to access it without verification.

A half measure such as is planned does nothing to enhance a single user's control over their SL experience, reduces control for those who can't verify for whatever reason, and represents a potentially devastating loss of business to business owners.

Owners of adult oriented businesses won't be the only ones hurt, they aren't the only places NPIOF users shop at, and if the new policy stops them from coming to SL, everyone gets hurt.

You would probably earn a lot more than here and with at least a modicum of security However I must admit the figures were interesting in the overall picture