Upcoming Changes for Adult Content: Answers to Questions

Why do people keep on discussing this and voicing their concerns. I can't believe this discussion has reached 68 pages. What everyone must realise is that SL is a dictatorship. Whatever is said won't change anything at all. When you access SL, LL owns you, the land you bought and everything you "own". The only way to stop them owning you is to get the hell out of SL! So just accept it guys!

First of all, as pointed out by some, the ToS does not allow LL to violate consumer protection laws. The 'absolute power' of LL is not entirely absolute. Close, but not entirely.

More importantly though, LL have, at least officially, asked for input as to how best to carry this out. That means there is an opportunity to make suggestions that they can take into account. It does not mean they will act on the input, but if the input is reasonable there is no reason to beleive they would just ignore it off hand.

Ok, let's compare this discussion with the discussion on Open Spaces. That discussion achieved nothing. LL got exactly what it originally intended, a price increase for 3750 prims. In this latest discussion LL will simply extract those suggestions which fit in with its original model and throw out those which don't. To understand LL a little better do some reading about Stalin and the way he manipulated. The similarities are glaringly obvious

At that stage they have done all they can reasonably do. If the kid is using the dad's info to get in without the dad knowing, then the kid is willing to commit information theft to get in, and if dad's was not available, they could have stolen the information from strangers. If the dad knowingly let the kid in, then the dad is potentially liable for child endangerment. Either way, LL could honestly say that they took all reasonable precautions.



Teen SL is not the only option out there... there are various MMO's, some of which are free to play. There is also facebook. Those are not adult rated options, but then neither is the teen grid.



Or, they did not until they had a better answer, which they feel they do now. There was a time when there were no formal age checks anywhere. ID proving our age has not always been available, and the private nature of such information has made checking it problematic. That does not invalidate the concept now that tthey feel that they have found a means to cross check such information in an online environment.



Not sure how young you appear RL, but try that line if you are ever asked for ID at a bar or theatre. And guess what.. there is fake ID in RL too. Age restricting adult content is not exactly a new idea.

You have a point. In all honesty, these Adult Content forums have consumed me the day the first one started I believe two going on three weeks ago. I have made it a point to not spend very much time in SL. Instead, I log in, check group messages, pull up the forum and log back out. I have purchased nothing in SL since the original announcement. I apologize to the content creators, but the Lindens seem to feel I am replaceable, and so there is hope you'll make money from the incoming crowds. I have little faith that the Lindens will handle these changes so that there is minimal damage. Given their past attempts at things, I think it is a fair assumption. It would seem the Lindens are aware they need to be better with their communication, and yet they still fail epicly in that regard.

It would be nice if the Linden staff had a separate thread or additional location where your responses are posted on topics with so many responses. I appreciate the different color text but there is still a lot to wade through to get to it.

btw, I was noticing this weekend the new policy will probably have an impact on the live music scene in SL, for better or worse. There won't be as many naked deadbeats and noobs in some of the clubs. In fact there probably won't be some of the clubs at all.

Lol, I think it is safe to say that a great number of Stalin's initiatives would contravene most modern consumer law, or more importantly, constitutional rights.

If the discussion over open spaces was anything like this one though, no surprise LL just stuck with their original plan. The actual questions posted by LL via Blondin here have for the most part been answered with demands, rants, verbal traps and very very few reasonable answers.

If it was moderated as badly as this discussion, then whoever was in charge probably just shrugged their shoulders and concluded 'no intelligent life here, carry on.'

I realize people are scared and angry, but at some point they have to calm down and discuss this rationally. Then even if LL do decide badly, at least they tried. Ranting and doing things like invoking the UN charter have no chance of success.

Of course Nany's posts did not help.

Proof that noone is completely wrong.. that suggestion is actually good.

It's not about consumer law, it's about governance. The question should not be "Who rules?" The real question should be "In whose interests do they rule?"

In the interests of their shareholders, subject to the interests of consumers generally (consumer law) and of society generally (civil/criminal/constitutional law).

That is my answer.. what is yours?

My answer is that SL is a virtual Communist state because it rules in the interests of itself. Your answer is therefore half right.

Really you might want to cut Blondin some slack. The man already had a full time job taking care of Nautilus and Bay City, etc etc and he's still having to do that on top of being the only one handling the threads. I'd hate to be trying to deal with this and setting up info hubs.

Why would I try that line in RL? I have my I.D. with my picture on it, and incidently, I'm standing right in front of who ever is checking my I.D. so they can see that my picture matches my face and that I'm well over 18. How is that the same as Aristotle Age-Verification within the context of SL?

Age restricting adult content within SL is not a new idea either. When I joined, I had to agree to a TOS that I'm over 18.

But you can't just apply the "what is Adult in RL should be Adult in SL" rule here. A bar in real life is Adult restricted because they sell alcohol, which the patrons consume. So applying that standard to SL where alcohol cannot really be consumed doesn't make any sense. Unless you are hooking up with an escort you met in SL in RL, then you aren't really having sex with her. Unless you are getting a stripper from SL to come to your RL house and strip tease for you... You are not seeing, smelling, or touching real flesh.

That is why the definitions of what is Adult *IN SL* need to follow a different rule, such as guidelines for entertainment.

Re-read my post .. I said 'or has not been given enough of a time budget.'

My point was that just asking if you are over 18 does not cut it in a RL age restricted venue.



Sigh, misunderstandings. SL alchohol is 'non-alcoholic.' Non-alcoholic beer or wine or whatever is not age restricted in RL, even though it is designed to taste like the real stuff.

The better analogy would be an R or X rated movie. And as for not being able to touch the stripper, most bars RL do not allow that. Many venues are not permitted that even if the bar wanted to allow it. Not all, but most. And they are still age restricted. Smell is not relevant either. Venues where the girl is protected in a room or booth and the patron comes to her window and (for a fee) tells her what he wants her to do are age restricted. There is glass between patron and performer, so smelling her is unlikely. Sales of X rated magazines are usually age restricted (not sure that is true in all areas, but it is true in most). And you must have missed my earlier post where someone else raised your arguement. Animated adult media such as the movie Fritz the Cat are also age restricted RL, even though the characters are anthropomorphic animals and very cartoony.

RL definitions work just fine, thank you. Trying to twist them or looking for the smallest differences to say 'aha! they are different!' does not work here any more than it does in RL.

RL definitions are not written down in anything resembling the form called for here, and for good reason. It is always case by case and based on precident. There are too many possible variations to do anything more than provide guidelines.

Maybe it would be more helpful if we knew exactly who have said they would rather not casually encounter adult content (yet to be determined)? Children? Conservatives? Big Businesses? To me that is bringing on a huge slippery slope, but if we don't know who it is we are trying to spare, how can we know what we should be sparing them from?

If you ask me what I'd rather not casually encounter, my answer is simple. Many things disturb or make me uncomfortable. But the problem is, those things usually don't involve sex at all. So how can I define for others what they shouldn't have to casually stumble across, when I'm the type of person who enjoys learning about new things, surprises and all, good and bad?

Maybe you should ask the mystery group of people who were offended what they would like to not casually encounter and post their list here so we have a base to start at?

It is actually a disagreement. We do not agree, so let's leave it at that. =P

Well, applying the rules for entertainment in the United States still pretty much rules kids out. The aforementioned 'Fritz the Cat' by Ralph Bakshi is still an X or by now, maybe just an extremely hard R-Rated movie I wouldn't want any child to see without a responsible parent beside to talk with them about it. The characters are very much on the level of cartoons from Saturday morning, but the kid is still going to go, "Lolwut? The toons are fucking!" or worse, "Mommy, what is the cute kitty doing to her?" I've never seen it outside of the Playboy Channel, that's certain. And in the 80's when I saw it, it was still cut for Playboy. An Adults Only Channel.

Yes all the sex, fetishy sex, ejaculation, simulated penetration and all that in Second Life is only cartoon sex. But it's as much cartoon sex as the oft-maligned Fritz. (They've killed, Fritz.. THEY'VE KILLED FRITZ! Oops... wrong Bakshi movie... *^_^*) If you have phone sex with a minor, you're still corrupting a minor. If you show it Fritz the Cat, or simulated sex in SL, you're still guilty by California's standards of Spreading Harmful Matter to Minors. Cybering with one is still against federal laws protecting minors. And I'm reasonably sure that if Fritz is still considered porn, then technically, engaging in simulated sex acts in a 3d environment could still be considered making porn with a minor, which certainly endangers the adult with a charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor at the very least.

So actually, you very much SHOULD apply the standard of what's illegal to expose children to here in Real Life should also be illegal to expose children to in Second Life. But don't misunderstand my intention. As far as children go that aren't my own? They can go play in a broken-syringe filled highway. I don't give a damn about Johnny who got himself a credit card at the age of seven in his dog's name. If the kid's that industrious and smart, more power to him. The lessons he learns in life are likely going to be self-taught anyway, for better or worse.

I'd want to have those real life legal standards imposed to protect the ADULTS from the presence of CHILDREN and all the legal reprisals and immature emotional dangers that come with interacting with one. Allowing children in game exposes me to the risk of inadvertently breaking all manner of newsworthy laws, whether they identify themselves as 18 or not. Being labelled a sexual predator in ways that could be damaging to a real life and career in rather permanent ways. Not true you say? They'd have to identify themselves as being under 18 so you knowingly engaged with a minor you say? Not so. Consider this.

All it takes is one romantically spurned teen to misunderstand an online roleplay to realize, "Oh I'll get him or her good! He probably didn't log it. I didn't. The lindens probably didn't. All I need to do is go to the nearest newspaper, cry crocodile tears and say, 'Second Life exposed me to an online predator... *sniff* She/He said he really loved me.. then he/she took me to this adult club and whipped me, beat me... ejaculated all over me... Made me put on breasts that grew and grew and grew..." and I trust I need not go on.

Fetishy relationships, or even normal relationships can happen and evolve online at a vastly accelerated rate. The emotions run high in simple chatroom environments. Emotions can build. People experience real emotional highs and lows. They can be hurt and believe those emotions to run pretty deeply. And who are we to say those feelings aren't real? People can come to the conclusion that they're in love with someone online at a frighteningly quick rate. Virtual marriages can happen in envionments as contrived as World of Warcraft, out of which real life marriages have sprung. And oh look... you can do that in Second Life too.

Only thanks to the internet and the advent of the instant message or E-Mail, an angry letter can be sent from the heart before the head can truly think about it. With blogs, a hurt person can post entire chatlogs of cybers or adult/mature conversations in order to try to publically humiliate someone who scorned them; adding or subtracting salient bits to make it all the more damaging. And an immature mind, emotionally unequipped to deal with the reality, or in this case the virtual reality of adult situations and relationships with REAL adults becomes a credible threat to those people's well-being.

The laws that prevent children from accessing adult content, materials, media or consumables, or cohabitating and having adult relations in RL aren't just there to protect children from those things or predatory adults. They're also there to protect us as adults from a real threat of reprisal from children who aren't mature enough to deal with interacting with us on an adult level. We as adults have the legal right to protection from harm in this way. As well, we as adults have the right (seeing as the Lindens are operating in the US where these laws exist) to be protected from harm in this way from children online.

As such, I'll maintain that no child should be allowed to have access to Second Life. It is a real responsibility to carry yourself in a mature and adult fashion when interacting with others in the world. And as much as they wouldn't be allowed into a bar where people go to meet one another, or a club that had adult/goings on in the form of a concert or dance night with drinking, all the way up to a burlesque show, the same must be said of Second Life. Where adults often go to meet up and relate to one another on real adult emotional levels. The animated sex is almost secondary to this argument, but it IS another reason.

Children are NOT mature enough to play with us here. Not the games we play. Nor should we have to have what games we play abridged, or our freedoms & privileges revoked on their behalf. There are a MULTITUDE of other places underaged people can go to play, talk and interact with one another that are administrated a lot more thoroughly than SL. Let em go play Mabinogi if they want a free one. Let em play World of Warcraft or ity of Heroes. Let em jump on IMVU. Let em go play in X-Box Live or Playstation Online. We are, as adults, under no expectation or obligation to make allowance for children to exist with us in Second Life. Not any more than someone who owns a pub or a strip club is expected to have a back room with legos, toys and videogames for kids.

We ciome here as adults with the expectation that other people around us are also going to be adults. No matter what shape or size we're wearing, we can assure ourselves that the person on the other side of the connection is presumably an adult in good faith, and enjoy interacting with them without having to worry about logging every conversation as evidence that we're not having a romantic conversation with a well-spoken 13 year old. No allowance for children should be made in the least for their presence in Second Life. Every effort should be made to prohibit their access into Second Life. Whatever you can legally do, freaking do it. I, in fact DEMAND that we as adults have safeguards from the presence of children. Not for their sake... For OURS.

If children are ever allowed into the game, I will be joining the exodus from Second Life until another SL-based online world with better management and more forward-thinking responsible individuals are running it. Anyone I care about, I will invite to go with me. I'll miss my gigantic inventory and all the things I bought in-world. I may even log in from time to time to preserve it until such time as I can transfer it to another adults-only game based on SL's engine. (Not holding my breath for that one.) But I won't stay here with kids. That's not what I knowingly signed on for.

Well, I'm blue in the face just from trying to read all this, WHEW! First off, I am a Christian, a Prude, a conservative. I'm also a male running a female avatar. I dont present a trampy image, nor do I care to. It totally frosts me to think that because my situation might "offend" someones's sensibilities that i might be segregated to a particular part of the grid, to save their precious mental stability is obsurd!!!! I dabble in some things adult, but I dont drag it to regions where "vanilla" people are in marketplaces and such, thats just bad form. I will say I'm not fond of Bloodlines Biters or forced rp in "open range" situations. If they can take no for an answer that usually settles it. If I walk into a sim that is offensive its my own dang fault if the place was clearly marked, and I should just stay the heck away from it!!! No further legislation, segregation, concentration camps are needed!!!
Now, as to the "false rumor" of teens and adults on the same grid?? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! Given my fashion styles for a guy, if one of them asked me anything and I tried to intelligently explain ONE word to them, I would be guilty of at least one of the following legal charges, 1 contributing to the delenquency, 2, enticement for indecent purposes, 3 interfering with custody. I have no interest in even coming close to that situation! A family on the same grid? Bad idea, as there is no way to really regulate who does what. the 18+ boundary should not be breached in either direction! For those easily offended, there are some wonderful sims that dont have any problems maintaining standards without penalizing anyone!

This incorrect. According to Blodin Linden, and he's restated it several times, just listing a "home" with BDSM equipment in Search will be enough to change it to a "venue" and therefore subject to forced relocation. Listing a home with BDSM equipment in Events, even if the event is purely non sexual in nature will do the same thing.

I don't need to put any text at all...just clicking Add to Search can get my mainland home forced to Ursula. In addition I am at risk of being AR'd by camming peepers if I USE the equipment. So all expensive BDSM equipment and thousands of $L worth of landscaping all sit in my inventory while my 1/4 sim sits empty.

I would imagine the people behind this are not the players/customers, but the board of directors as Mitch K pointed out LL and SL is in the early stage of development as far as VR are concerned and as time passes SL will change, whether we as players think it is good or not, LL is a for profits and therefore must put its shareholders/investors first as it grows and evolves. We will never know the exact road map that LL has for SL and can only glean the info from various sources, maybe their ultimate aim with this is to create separate worlds within the grid eventually and this is a test bed for them.

If SL survives this which i am sure it will, the next few years will be interesting to say the least

Oh gosh... imagine that... "MOM! DAD! CHECK IT OUT! MY PENIS/TITS ARE BIGGER THAN YOURS!"

FAIL.

I asked Blondin about this and he said if the items are in the home and used in the privacy of the home then no I cant be AR'd by anyone camming into my home to see what i am doing

I am sure that if you and a friend are using the equipment then that doesn't merit an AR, i read it as you say, that if you include it in search or have sex parties which are advertised and get caught then you are liable to possibly be moved, i would hope that the Gteam will judge it on a case by case basis, but that cannot be guaranteed thats for sure

But why would someone want to advertise their home in search when they have a munch/whatever unless they are intending it to be a public event. I don't agree with all the rules but public listings equate to public events and should be treated under the same rules other venues have to accept with all of this.

If people have to move which we will and someone then is allowed to hold parties in their home that they advertise in search is that fair to those that have been forced to move? I would also expect that people will be going around AR'ing those that do, just as they do with the signage etc. which is going to create an extra workload for the Gteam and possibly more problems as they skim through the AR's with the normal act first ask questions later attitude. Its gonna be a messy few months thats for sure